Punjab

Moga

CC/15/75

Balkar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Happy Tyre House - Opp.Party(s)

In person

02 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                      C.C. No. 75 of 2015

                                                                Instituted On: 18.09.2015

                                                  Decided On: 02.12.2015

 

Balkar Singh, aged about 34 years, s/o Darshan Singh, resident of Sukhe di Patti, Near Dera Baba Puran Dass, Village and Post office Bir Rau ke, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga.

Complainant 

Versus

 

Happy Tyre House, Akalsar Road, Old Chungi, G.T.Road, Moga, through its Proprietor/Partner.

 

Opposite Party

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                   Smt.Vinod Bala, Member

Present:      Sh.Balkar Singh complainant in person.

                    Sh.Ashok Sharma, Advocate Counsel for opposite party.

 

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against Happy Tyre House, Akalsar Road, Old Chungi, G.T.Road, Moga, through its Proprietor/Partner (herein-after referred to as opposite parties)- directing them to pay a sum of Rs.6000/- in regard to the purchase of two tyres or to replace the above said two tyres and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of damages, mental tension and deficient services and or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that complainant has purchased two tyres for the vehicle no.PB-46-K-2904 for Rs.6000/-. But however, both the tyres became defective and were torn out. The complainant informed the opposite party and requested it either to replace the abovesaid defective tyres or to refund the amount of Rs.6000/-. The opposite party kept the abovesid tyres with him and told the complainant that he will send the claim form to the concerned office and the matter will be resolved accordingly. After few days, the complainant visited the office of opposite party and enquired about his claim. But the opposite party told the complainant that he is not entitled to get any relief and claim has been rejected. The complainant is earning his livelihood by plying the said vehicle. The vehicle has become idle for the last 3 months and complainant is suffering a loss @ Rs.1000/- per day. The complainant has been deprived of using tyres since the date of its purchase. The services rendered by the opposite parties are deficient and complainant has been harassed unnecessarily. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared through counsel Sh.Ashok Sharma, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has got no locus-standi; no deficiency in service has been attributed to the opposite party; the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. Therefore, the complaint deserves dismissal; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands, rather he has willfully concealed the material and patent facts from this Forum while filing the present complaint; the complaint is bad account of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. Manufacturer and dealer have not been made party; no tyre number has been mentioned; Original bill has not been produced. The claim of the complainant was forwarded, but same was rejected due to the fault of complainant himself. The rejection letter rejection letter no.RNL001816/21.08.2015 and rejection letter no.RNL001818/24.08.2015 are attached with written statement. On merits, the contents of all other paras of the complaint have been denied being wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

4.                In his evidence, the complainant Balkar Singh appeared in witness box as his own witness and filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of his allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record photocopies of the documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

5.                To rebut the evidence of the complainant, opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Surinder Pal Sharma, Prop./Partner of Happy Tyre House Ex.OP-1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-2 & Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

7.                On the basis of evidence on record, complainant has vehemently contended that he has admittedly purchased two tyres for his vehicle bearing registration no.PB-46K-2904 for an amount of Rs.6000/-. But however, both the tyres became defective and were torn out. The complainant informed the opposite party and requested it either to replace the abovesaid defective tyres or to refund the sale price of the tyres to the tune of Rs.6000/-. The opposite party retained the tyres with it and told the complainant that it will send the claim form to the concerned office and the matter will be resolved accordingly. But however, the claim was repudiated vide letters Ex.OP2 & Ex.OP3 respectively on record without any rhyme or reason. There was warranty for a period of five years on each tyre and conditions on the back of Ex.C2 bear witness to the said fact. There was a manufacturing defect in the tyres and on that account they were torn out and became useless, after few months of the purchase thereof. It is requested that the opposite party may either be directed to replace the old tyres with new one of the same make or in the alternative to refund the sale price of both tyres to the tune of Rs.6000/-, besides granting compensation for loss of work, mental & physical agony.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has vehemently contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Even the complaint as well as affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 on record nowhere stated that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. As a matter of fact, the claim was also declined on account of the fact that there was no manufacturing defect and the product became defective due to "deflation damage". It is, therefore, contended that complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed and the same may be dismissed accordingly.

9.                We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.

10.              There is no denying the fact that the complainant has purchase two tyres for his vehicle bearing registration no.PB-46K-2904 for an amount of Rs.3000/- each from the opposite party. It is also an admitted fact that both the tyres became defective and went out of service after few months of their purchase. It is also not denied that both the tyres carried a warranty for the period of five years from the date of their purchase. But, however, from the perusal of the complaint as well as affidavit of complainant on record, it becomes evident that there are no allegations of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is also nowhere stated either in the complaint or in the affidavit of the complainant that both the tyres became defective and went out of order due to some manufacturing defect. As a matter of fact tyres became defective on account of deflation damage and the repudiation letters Ex.OP2 and OP3 respectively bear witness to the said fact. No report of any expert has been adduced on record to contradict the reasons given in the rejection letters. Even perusal of the complaint does not disclose any consumer dispute. Simply saying that the tyres were within warranty cover and those became defective and useless within a few months of purchase, will not suffice. The complainant was supposed to further state that the tyres suffered from some mechanical defect and on that account those became defective and useless, so as to bring his case within realm of consumer dispute. Furthermore, some expert report should have been pressed into service to contradict the reasons given in claim rejection letters. But, for the reasons best known to the complainant nothing was done. In these circumstances, we reach an irresistible conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove his case and his complaint cannot succeed. 

11.              In view of the foregoing discussion, the instant complaint is not competent. Consequently, the instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

                              (Vinod Bala)                 (S.S. Panesar)

                               Member                           President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:02.12.2015.