DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                  Complaint no. 648                                                                                      

                                                                 Instituted on:   04.11.2016     

                                                                 Decided on:    11.04.2017

Surjit Singh son of S. Gurnam Singh resident of V.P.O. Chhahar, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.         

                                                        …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.     House of Tyres, Mahavir Chowk, Sangrur through its proprietor.

2.  Michelin India Pvt. Limited 3rd Floor orchid business park, Sector 48 Shona Road, Gurgaon through its authorized signatory. 

                                                ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Rajan Kapil  Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1          :      Shri  G.S.Chatha  Advocate                         

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2          :      Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate                       

Quorum

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ORDER:  

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Surjit Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he had purchased four tyres from OP no.1  for an amount of Rs.5800/- per tyre and paid Rs.23200/- in cash to OP no.1 under three years warranty. After few months one tyre started giving problem size of tyre has become flaring/ damage and this fact was brought to the notice of OP no.1 who assured to replace the tyre with new one. The complainant also got checked from other shop of tyres who told to complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the tyre but OP no.1 flatly refused to redress the grievance of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to pay Rs.5800/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,  

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as counsel fee and Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP no.1, it is denied that at the time of purchasing of tyres OP no.1  also told the complainant that there is a 3 years warranty of tyres. It is denied that after few months one tyres out of above four tyres started giving problem and size of tyre has become flaring/ damage and OP assured the complainant to replace the tyre with new one.  Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.2, it is submitted that invoice / bill of  the alleged purchase  of tyres from the OP no.1 has not been filed on record and in the absence of which alleged purchase  of tyres cannot be assumed to be genuine. It is denied that the complainant was told that there is a three years warranty of tyres.  It is denied that alleged tyre was never sent by the complainant to OP for detailed technical inspection. The complainant was asked by the OP to bring and get the tyre inspected  from expert but only with malafide intention same was not done by the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.2.  

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP1/1, Ex.OP1/2 and  Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/3 and closed evidence.

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased four tyres for an amount of Rs.23200/- from the OP no.1 under invoice number 2837 dated 07.10.2015 which is Ex.C-7 on record. The complainant's case is that one purchased tyre  stared giving problem and size of the tyre has become flaring / damage and this fact was brought to the notice of the OP no.1 who assured to replace the same. On the other hand, OP no.1 has specifically denied that the complainant approached  the OP no.1 for any defect in the tyre.

6.             The OP no.2 has stated in their written statement that on receipt of legal notice, the complainant was asked to bring the alleged defective  tyre for the detailed technical inspection which was to be carried out by the expert of answering OP  to ascertain the cause  and effect of the alleged damage caused to the alleged tyre  but the alleged defective tyre was not brought  for technical inspection by the complainant. The complainant has not specifically denied this fact. Moreover, the complainant has stated that there is manufacturing defect in the tyre in question but he has not produced on record report of an expert which proves that there is any manufacturing defect in the tyre in question.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case and as such the present complaint is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                 Announced

                April 11, 2017

                           ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                   Member                      Member                President

BBS/-