BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 496 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 03.08.2022.
Date of Decision : 12.11.2024.
Sarabjeet Singh son of Shri Chanan Singh, resident of village Desu Malkana, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Goyal Tyre House, Dabwali Road, Kalanwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ authorized signatory.
2. Appolo Tyres Ltd., 7 Institutional Area, Sector 32, Gurgaon- 122001 (India), through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is having one Swift Car bearing registration No. HR-12L/8868. The op no.1 deals in selling of tyres of Good year and Apollo company and on 16.03.2020 complainant had purchased four tyres of Apollo company for his aforesaid vehicle from op no.1 vide bill invoice No. 1095/2019-20 and paid Rs.2500/- for each tyre i.e. Rs.10,000/- in total to op no.1. That op no.1 had given warranty of five years regarding any manufacturing defect in the tyres. It is further averred that in the month of March, 2022 the tyres purchased by complainant cut out automatically and it seems to be manufacturing defect. The complainant approached the op no.1 in this regard but op no.1 did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant visited the op no.1 time and again but he lingered on the matter with one pretext or the other. It is further averred that ultimately in the start of May, 2022 the complainant made a complaint to op no.2 i.e. company for replacement of the aforesaid tyres and op no.2 in response to the said complaint made a technical/ inspection report dated 10.05.2022 vide which op no.2 refused to replace the tyres with false grounds and as such complainant is being harassed at the hands of ops without any fault on his part due to which he has suffered mental tension. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, initially both the ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, concealment of true and material facts, estoppal etc. It is submitted that it is wrong that op no.1 at the time of selling the tyres had given any alleged warranty of five years to the complainant. As a matter of fact, the warranty on tyres is issued by the manufacturing company, which remains clubbed with the tyre and the warranty claim is subject to terms and conditions of the warranty issued by the manufacturing company. The answering op has nothing to do with the warranty on the tyres purchased by complainant. It is further submitted that on receipt of complaint about the defect in the tyre purchased by complainant bearing Serial No. 0920, the answering op sent the same to op no.2 vide complaint ref. No. TC1652166472744. The op no.2 after due inspection of the complained tyre, rejected the claim of complainant vide letter dated 10.05.2022 on the ground that the same does not fall within the prescribed parameters of warranty policy i.e. manufacturing defect. The claim of complainant has been rightly rejected by complainant as there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre complained of, rather the alleged cut was with some sharp edged substance, which shows that the complainant had operated the vehicle in a negligent and careless manner. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding frivolous complaint, cause of action and that complainant has failed to prove manufacturing defect in the tyres because an opinion of expert is necessary which has not been filed in this case and as such complaint has been filed in contravention of Section 38(2) of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it is submitted that op no.1 is not an authorized dealer of Apollo Tyres and op. It is incorrect that any unconditional warranty for five years could be given on the products of the op company as per warranty policy of the company, replacement on pro rata basis is given only in case of any manufacturing defect in the product. It is further submitted that it is incorrect that alleged tyres got damaged due to any manufacturing defects after two years of running. Even running of a tyre for two years shows no manufacturing defect in it. The alleged tyres were never forwarded to the answering op for technical inspection as alleged by complainant. Moreover, answering op provides an inspection report after proper inspection if a tyre is shown to it. No such report has been presented on record by complainant hence, answering op denies all allegations and claims alleged by complainant on answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3.
5. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Jagdev Kumar Proprietor as Ex. RW1/1 and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that when the case was fixed for evidence of op no.2 none appeared on behalf of op no.2 and as such op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
7. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.1 and have gone through the case file.
8. From the invoice Ex.C2, it is evident that on 16.03.2020 complainant had purchased four tyres of Apollo Company from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.2500/- each i.e. for total amount of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant has stated that there was five years warranty of tyres in question and he alleges defect in the said tyres after two years of its purchase i.e. in the month of 2022. However, from the technical inspection report produced on record by complainant as well as op no.1 as Ex.C3 and Ex.R1, it is evident that only one Tyre bearing Sr. No. 0920 of the car of complainant was got inspected by complainant from ops whereby the parameters of the tyre were checked and cuts and snags in sidewall of the tyre were found and as such ops mentioned in the report that they find themselves unable to process his request for replacement under warranty period as the same does not fall within the prescribed parameters of warranty policy i.e. manufacturing defect. The complainant has failed to prove on record that other three tyres also having any defect and that cuts and snags in the inspected tyre was also not due to sharp edged substance and was only due to manufacturing defect. If there was any manufacturing defect in the tyres, same could not have run for two years. The complainant has failed to prove on record that other three tyres of the car in question are also having some defects as only one tyre has been got inspected by complainant from ops and there is no other report from any other expert to prove any defect in the remaining three tyres. Even the complainant has failed to prove on record that how many kms were covered by these tyres as complainant has failed to prove on record that what was reading of Kms in the meter of the car at the time of purchase of tyres and it may be possible that in two years the car has covered more kms as at the time of inspection of one tyre, the reading of the meter was 156365 and as such the tyres became out worn. In these circumstances, complainant has failed to prove his case through any cogent and convincing evidence.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 12.11.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
