Complaint No: 224 of 2022.
Date of Institution: 01.11.2022.
Date of order: 04.9.2023
Sarabjit Singh son of Sohan Singh resident of H. No. 164/14, New Sant Nagar, Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
.....Complainant.
VERSUS
- Goodyear India Limited, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, 121004, Haryana (India) through its Authorized representative.
- Deep Honda, Ground floor, Fatehgarh Churian Bye Pass, Opposite Khanna Paper Mill, Amritsar through its Sales Manager. Pincode – 143006.
.....Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 35 of The Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.G.S.Sohal, Advocate.
Opposite parties exparte.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Sarabjit Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Goodyear India Limited Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased a Honda City Car from OP No. 2 bearing registration No. PB-06-AZ0602 and the said Car is assembled with tyres manufactured by OP No. 1, hence the complainant is consumer of opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the vehicle was purchased in the year 2020 and is registered with the RTO Gurdaspur. It is further pleaded that complainant is using the said vehicle for his day to day commute and his route of travel is Pathankot to Amritsar Highway which is the properly maintained by the NHAI through third party. It is alleged that during the use of above said vehicle one of the tyre of the said vehicle was ruptured /damaged from the center point. It is further pleaded that said damage was not influenced by any third party object and was solely because of the poor built quality manufactured by OP No. 1 and sold by the OP No. 2. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question and the damage tyre are both within the warranty period. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Opposite parties to raise his claim in regard to the said tyre, but the Opposite parties refused to pay any compensation or provide a new tyre to the complainant. It is further pleaded that the damage tyre is highly expensive and complainant is not able to purchase new one and is dependent upon the Opposite parties for a new tyre. It is further pleaded that OP No. 1 reviewed the condition of tyre and refused to provide any repair/replacement and the claim inspection report was handed over to the complainant vide which the OP No. 1 refused to cover the damage under warranty policy. It is further alleged that the claim inspection reports also highlights the photographs the damage tyre which shows that the damage is due to poor manufacturing quality of the said tyre and now the OP No. 1 is escaping to accept its liability by way of accommodating the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant has been so harassed by the Opposite parties. It is further pleaded that opposite parties have illegally and erroneously repudiated the claim of the complainant, which act on the part of the Opposite parties is altogether wrong, illegal, arbitrary, and cryptic, against the natural justice and is biased one, which amounts to deficiency in the service on the part of the Opposite parties. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience, as such there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with Rs.50,000/- for mental as well as physical harassment and Rs.20,000/- for litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
3. Opposite parties did not appear and despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte wide order date 14.12.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sarabjit Singh, (Complainant) along with other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 (including Annexure - A and Annexure - B).
5. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
6. Written arguments not filed by the complainant.
7. Ld counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant purchased a Honda City Car from OP No. 2 bearing registration No. PB-06-AZ0602 and the said Car is assembled with tyres manufactured by OP No. 1, hence the complainant is consumer of opposite parties. It is argued that during the use of above said vehicle one of the tyre of the said vehicle was ruptured /damaged from the center point and damage was not result of any third party object and was solely because of the poor built quality manufactured by OP No. 1 and sold by the OP No. 2 and the vehicle in question and the damage tyre are both within the warranty period. It is further argued that the complainant approached the Opposite parties to raise his claim in regard to the said tyre, but the Opposite parties refused to pay any compensation or provide a new tyre to the complainant which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.
9. It is admitted fact that the complainant is that the complainant has purchased a Honda City Car from OP No. 2 which bears registration No. PB-06-AZ0602 and the said Car is assembled with tyres manufactured by OP No. 1. It is further admitted fact that the vehicle was purchased in the year 2020 and is registered with the RTO Gurdaspur. The only dispute is whether the tyre which was got admittedly damaged is due some manufacturing defect or some other, reason. To prove his complainant has place on record copy of Registration certificate of the car Ex C2, Copy of claim inspection report Ex C3 as which the opposite party has given its opinion that defect is not manufacturing one rather the damage to the sidewall has taken place due to some external object. But parusal of the report shows that it has not been proved whether the tyre was inspected by some independent engineer and since the damage to the tyre has been proved rather admitted by the opposite party. And more over the evidence brought on record by the complainant has remained un rebutted, as such failure to replace the tyre amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
10. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the tyre to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization of the entire amount on account of mental tension, harassment and mental stress and also Rs.2,000/- as cost litigation. Entire exercise will be completed within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this order.
11. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.
12. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Sept. 04, 2023 Member
YP.
