DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 282
Instituted on: 18.06.2019
Decided on: 22.11.2024
Mandeep Bhardwaj son of Rupinder Kumar Bhardwaj resident of Peer Bana Banoi Road, Street No.03, H.No.147, Sunam, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Hotla Tyres Wheel Point, Opposite Truck Union, Improvement Trust Office, Sunam Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor.
2. Goodyear India Limited Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh Faridabad- 121004, Haryana ( India).
….Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Shri Yashwinder Singh, Adv.
For the OP No.1 : Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.
For the OP No.2 : Shri Rakesh Kumar Khipla,Adv.
QUORUM :-
JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT
SARITA GARG : MEMEBR
KANWALJEET SINGH : MEMBER
ORDER
JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant namely Mandeep Bhardwaj has filed the present complaint against Hotla Tyres Wheel Point and another ( hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant has purchased 3 tyres mark Goodyear assurance Triple Max 195/55/16 for sum of Rs.17400/- by cash payment from OP No.1. On 18.05.2019 one of the above said tyre got damaged for which complaint was made to Op no.1 who called serviceman of Goodyear on 25.05.2019 who prepared his report in the absence of the complainant and did false and forged signature of the complainant on the said report. The serviceman mentioned in his report that there is no manufacturing fault. It is further pleaded that the tyre has covered the distance of 25000 km only within the period of less than two years. The serviceman wrongly mentioned in his report about the kilometers ( 48742) of the car which is not exact according to the meter of the car because the complainant has purchased the tyre for his car for second time. When the tyre was installed in the car then the car completed approximately 50000 kms and after installation of new tyres the car has covered the distance of approximately 25000 kms only. But according to the Goodyear company the warranty of tyres is 5 years and worry free service warranty for 2 years from the date of invoice. But the OP No.1 did not register the tyres for online policy and did not give WFS card with malafide intention because of which tyre was not replaced by OP No.2. OP no.2 mentioned in his report that Worry Free Service Warranty Policy is not applicable because of non-registration of tyres of his company by the OP No.1. Due to the said damage of tyre it is danger to the life of complainant and his family members which could lead to irreparable loss. The complainant has purchased new tyre of Rs.5200/- on 13.06.2019 on his personal expenses to change the damaged tyre. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs:-
i) To refund the price of defective tyre i.e. Rs.5800/- alongwith interest @18% from the date of purchase of defective tyre till the realization of the amount and to refund the price of new purchased tyre i.e. Rs.5200/- dated 13.06.2019 alongwith interest @18% from the date of purchase of defective tyre till the realization of the amount
ii) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the OP no.1 appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant approached the OP no.1 and told him that his tyre has been damaged. The Op no.1 immediately lodged complaint with OP no.2 who sent their engineer on 25.5.2019. The complainant was duly intimated regarding the visit of the engineer of the OP no.2 who checked the tyre in the presence of the complainant and found that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre rather the tyre was damaged as it was cut by some sharp object and he also found that there was no manufacturing defect in the said tyre. The OP no.1 has told the complainant at the time of purchase of tyre that he himself have to apply for the company’s policy online. As such, OP no.1 is not liable to pay any damage to the complainant. Lastly, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Upon notice of the complaint, OPs no.2 appeared and filed reply by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the vehicle bearing registration no. PB13AK0100 is owned by one Mr. Rakesh Kumar and not by the complainant i.e. Mr. Mandeep Bhardwaj. That upon the inspection of the tyre, the senior officer customer service of the opposite party no.2 inspected the tyre and made the following observations: “ one tyre inspected in demounted condition and thoroughly . On observation found through damage on tyre tread area due to external sharp object/ Road Hazard. No manufacturing deficiency found, it is Goodyear non-warrantable condition as per Goodyear warranty policy.” Thus, there is no unfair trade practice and deficient services on the part of the opposite party no.2. On merits, It is stated that on 14.05.2019 the OP no.2 received the complainant’s complaint regarding “ Tyre damage” in the car bearing registration number PB13AK0100 owned by one Mr. Rakesh Kumar. On receipt thereof, the opposite party no.2 registered it as complaint no. Q-1405190431 and deputed a Senior Officer Customer Service namely Mr. Ompal Kamboj who has an experience of 11 years in the tyre industry who inspected the tyre bearing serial no.2417 and made observations “ one tyre inspected in demounted condition and thoroughly. On observation found through damage on tyre tread area due to external sharp object/ Road Hazard. No manufacturing deficiency found, it is Goodyear non-warrantable condition as per Goodyear warranty policy.” As per the Warranty Policy of the OP no.2, a tyre is warranted only against an inherent manufacturing related condition. It is also stated that where the damage in the tyre is due to penetration of an external sharp object/ road hazard, the manuturer cannot be held liable for its replacement. Clause B (1) (i) and (ii) of the opposite party no.2’s warranty policy is reproduced below:
“B. Warranty- Exclusions & Limitations
- The Warranty does not cover tyre damage or irregular wear & tear caused or arising from any of the following reason:
- Road Hazards including punctures, cuts, snags, bruise, impact breaks etc:”
All the other allegations of the complaint are denied and lastly OP No.2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. In support of his case the complainant tendered affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of invoice no.49 dated 5.8.2017 Ex.C-2, report of dated 25.5.2019 Ex.C-3, copy of invoice no.264 dated 13.06.2019 Ex.C-4, copy of detail of worry free service by Goodyear company Ex.C-5, copy of report dated 5.8.2017 Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.2 has tendered affidavits Ex.OP2/1 and ExOP2/2, Ex.OP2/3 copy of print out of internet regarding RC of vehicle no. PBAK13AK-0100, Ex.OP2/4 copy of inspection report, Ex.OP2/5 copy of warranty condition ( 1 to 4 pages), Ex.OP2/6 copy of warranty policy ( 1 to 7 pages) and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1 in which he reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. Further, the complainant has placed on record copy of invoice serial number 49 dated 05.08.2017, Ex.C-2 which shows that the complainant has purchased three tyres mark Goodyear 195/55/16 for an amount of Rs.17400/-. Apart from this, the complainant has placed on record copy of Spot Inspection Report Ex.C-3 vide which it is mentioned that the vehicle registration no. PB13 AK0100 covered kms 48742 and against the column of disposition type it is mentioned non-technical and size /pattern has been mentioned as 195/55R16 . Ex.C-5 is the copy of conditions about the Worry Free Service of the Goodyear company wherein it is mentioned Worry Free Service is an independent service which is in addition to Goodyear India Warranty Policy (“ Warranty Program”) and under WFS, Tyres may be replaced on pro rata basis having non warrantable conditions namely, Run flat/deflation damage, Fitment damage , Non-repairable tyres ( through cuts and damage on the tread area), Non-repairable tyres ( through cuts and damage on sidewall area) & impact brake damage. Ex.C-6 is another Spot Inspection Report dated 5.8.2017 of vehicle registration number PB 13AK0100 kms covered 48742 and against the column disposition type it is mentioned non-technical and size/pattern mentioned as 195/55R16.
7. On the other hand, OP no.2 in order to rebut the case of the complainant has placed on record affidavit Ex.OP2/1 of Mr. Aditya Tanwar Working Manager Legal of OP no.2 and Ex.OP2/2 is the affidavit of Ompal Kamboj Technical Expert of OP no.2 in which both the affidavits similar averments are taken as mentioned in the written statement filed by OP no.2. Ex.OP2/3 is copy of a message of Vahan regarding registration of the vehicle PB13AK0100 in which owners name is mentioned as Rakesh Kumar. Ex.OP2/4 is the copy of spot inspection report. Further, the OP no.2 has placed on record copy of warranty condition Ex.OP2/5 and Ex.OP2/6 is the Tyre Condition Analysis Guide.
8. It is an admitted fact between the complainant and opposite parties that the complainant has purchased the tyre in question from opposite parties vide invoice no.49 dated 5.8.2017. Further the fact that the tyre in question was got damaged was also admitted between the parties. The main contention of the complainant is that the spot inspection report was forgedly prepared by opposite parties. The complainant alleged that the report dated 25.05.2019 was prepared in the absence of the complainant. Further the complainant has alleged that he has not signed the above said spot inspection report Ex.C-3. However complainant has admitted his signatures on the previous spot inspection report dated 05.08.2017 Ex.C-6. We have compared the signatures of Mandeep Bhardwaj ( complainant) in view of powers vested under Section 72 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 on the spot inspection report Ex.C-6 as well as on the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the spot inspection report Ex.C-3 and hold that the signatures on Ex.C-3 is different as compared to Ex.C-2 as well as on the complaint. Further, the complainant has alleged that kms mentioned on the spot inspection report dated 05.08.2017, Ex.C-6 and dated 25.05.2019 Ex.C-3 are similar. On perusal of documents Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-6 we find that in both these documents kms covered is mentioned as 48742 i.e. similar Kms reading in both the documents. Further, complainant has produced on record invoice dated 13.06.2019, Ex.C-4 to show that he had to buy a tyre worth Rs.5200/- due to deficiency in service of opposite parties by not replacing the tyre in question. The opposite party no.2 has produced affidavit Ex.OP2/2 of Shri Ompal Kamboj in which he submitted that he is a certified Technical Expert of OP no.2 and is working as a Senior Officer Customer Service but it is not stated in the affidavit that what qualifications he possessed. The opposite party no.1 in his reply submitted that the OP no.1 did not register the tyre for online policy and as a matter of fact opposite party no.1 has told the complainant at the time of purchase that he himself to apply online policy of the company but we feel that it is the duty of the seller to get applied for the online registration of the worry free service warranty policy. Moreover, opposite party no.2 did not send tyre in question to the company’s laboratory to make analysis or to find out whether the tyre in question suffered from any manufacturing defect or not. Learned counsel for the complainant has produced a ruling of the Hon’ble Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( U.T) titled as MRF Limited Vs. Partap Singh and Others, Appeal Case No.513 of 2000 ( HRY) RBT 255 of 2006, D/d 5.12.2006 wherein it was held that manufacturing defect in tyre- Tyre damaged- Complainant deposited tyre with dealer to be sent to OP ( manufacturer)- OP rejected claim stating no manufacturing defect- Evidence led by OP, false – No evidence to indicate tyre sent to OP was returned to complainant- Instead of replacing tyre or refunding amount, OP adopted unfair trade practice and fabricated documents showing that tyre had been returned to the dealer- Appeal dismissed- Costs of Rs.20,000/- imposed- Role of OP highly condemnable- Order of Forum upheld. We are of the view that instead of replacing the tyre or refunding the amount , the Ops had adopted unfair trade practice and fabricated the documents which is highly condemnable and therefore Ops are liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
9. In view of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and OPs are directed to refund price of the defective tyre i.e. Rs.5800/- alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization. The OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5500/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses. However, it is made clear that the Complainant shall return the defective tyre to the Ops at the time of getting the refund of the amount.
10. Compliance of the order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
11. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
12. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
Announced.
November22,2024
( Kanwaljeet Singh) (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)
Member Member President
