Haryana

StateCommission

A/1107/2016

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARI SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL SATIJA

07 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

                                                             First Appeal No  :      1107 of 2016

Date of Institution:     21.11.2016

Date of Decision :     07.02.2017

 

 

 

M/s Goodyear India Limited, Registered Office at ; Plot No.21/4, NH-2, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh-121004 Haryana, India.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

 

1.      Hari Singh son of Sh. Bhoop Singh, Village Roopawas, Tehsil and District Sirsa, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s Singla Gas Store, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

Respondent-opposite Party No.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member                               

 

                                                                        Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

 

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Hari Singh, respondent-complainant in person.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Goodyear India Limited-opposite party No.1 (appellant herein) against the order dated October 20^th, 2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Hari Singh-complainant was allowed. The opposite parties were directed to replace all the four tyres of the tractor with new one and to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant.   

2.      The complainant purchased four tyres of Goodyear make for his tractor from Singla Gas Store, Sirsa-opposite party No.2 for Rs.25,000/- vide bill No.7920 dated January 26^th, 2009 with a guarantee of five years.  In the month of December 2012, the complainant noticed cracks in the tyres.  He approached opposite party No.2 but to no avail.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The opposite parties, in their written version, pleaded that had there been any defect in the tyres, the complainant would not have used the tyres for four years and nine months.  The appellant deputed one of its Engineer to inspect the tyres at the showroom of opposite party No.2 on October 03^rd, 2013 but the complainant did not turn up for inspection.   The opposite parties denied that there was any manufacturing defects in the tyres. 

4.      It is not in dispute that the tyres purchased by the complainant developed defects during the warranty period.  To prove his case, the complainant has placed on record report (Exhibit C-3) of Ms. Kanwaljeet Kaur, Mechanical Engineer, who inspected the tyres on September 10^th, 2016 and reported that there were 10-15 cracks of 2-3 ½ inches in length in front tyres and 15-20 number of 3/ ½ -4 inches in length in rear tyres. The tyres were not in a position to ply.  In rebuttal thereto, the appellant did not lead any evidence to prove that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres.  The impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

5.      The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 07.02.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President