BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.457 of 2014

Date of Instt. 30.12.2014

Date of Decision :16.06.2015

Joga Singh aged about 48 years son of Gian Singh R/o Village Bhakriana, PO Kotli Than Singh, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala.

..........Complainant Versus

1. International Tractors & Automobiles, GT Road, Phillaur, District Jalandhar through its Manager/Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.

2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Farm Equipment Section, C/o Swaraj Engg.Ltd, Phase-9, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.

3. Goodyear India Limited, Mathura Road, Balabgarh-121004, District Faridabad (Haryana) through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Chandandeep Singh Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Sh.BB Sekhri Adv., counsel for OP No.3.

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a tractor Mahindra Model M-575DIDCPS, 45 Horse Power, 4 Cylinder, Diesel Engine, Chasis/Engine No.NKKB-00627 for Rs.5,40,000/- from opposite party No.1 vide bill No.ITA/M-575DIDCPS-2013-2014/115 dated 6.5.2013. The above said tractor is registered in the name of the complainant vide registration No.PB09S-2409 in the office of DTO, Kapurthala. The above said tractor is manufactured by opposite party No.2 in which the tyres of opposite party No.3 are fitted which are still under warranty. At the time of purchase the said tractor, the opposite party told and assured the complainant that in case of any defect or damage caused to any tyre fitted with the said tractor, the defective/damaged tyre shall be replaced immediately after deducting some depreciation. While cultivating own agriculture land, the rear tyre "Vajra Super" No.B221-7813 (size:13x6x28) alongwith its tube damaged/cracked on 20.9.2014. The complainant contacted the opposite party No.1 and requested to replace the said tyre as per earlier promise made at the time of sale but the opposite party No.1 directed the complainant to contact opposite party No.3 through their toll free number. On 5.11.2014 the complainant contacted opposite party No.3 through their toll free number who registered the complaint of complainant and told the complainant that their engineer will contact with complainant to inspect the damaged tyre and will solve the problem. The engineer of the opposite party No.3 came to inspect the damaged tyre and told the complainant that the said tyre can not be replaced by opposite party No.3 being direct sale to opposite party No.2. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 who told the complainant that they are also unable to replace the said damaged tyre being refused by opposite party No.3. Due to non replacement of the damaged tyre, the delay of two months occurred for sowing the crops which caused heavy loss for Rs.3,75,000/- to complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the damaged tyre and tube or to refund its price with interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 pleaded that at the time of sale of above said tyre of tractor it was clearly told to the complainant that the claim of the tyre would be given by the company and in this regard the complainant signed on warranty delivery letter. The engineer of the opposite party No.3 visited the complainant and inspected the tyre. The engineer told to the complainant that there was no manufacturing fault or defect in the said tyre. The complainant also visited the office of opposite party No.3 for replacement of tyre but the opposite party No.3 refused to accept the claim of the complainant being no manufacturing defect. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In its written reply, opposite party No.2, inter-alia, pleaded that no cause of action arose against the opposite party No.2 and in favour of the complainant, as there is no allegation of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The allegation is of defective tyre that too has arisen after more than one year and five months of the purchase of the vehicle. The warranty of the tyre is given by opposite party No.3 being the manufacturer, their engineer has inspected the tyre and has found that it has been damaged due to the penetration of external sharp object and no manufacturing defect is there in the tyre. It is however, submitted that the manufacturer of the tyre i.e opposite party No.3, Goodyear India Limited has nowhere said that the tyre in question can not be replaced being direct sale to opposite party No.2. As a matter of fact, the complaint was made on 5.11.2014 to opposite party No.3 and their engineer inspected the tyre of 15.11.2014. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In its separate written reply, opposite party No.3 pleaded that on receipt of the complaint and as a matter of goodwill, gesture and reputation which the opposite party No.3 enjoys globally, the opposite party no.3 deputed one of its engineers to inspect the tyres alleged to have become defective, in line with the warranty policy and the process for claiming warranty of the company which is a public document and displayed widely including on the website of the company. On thorough and diligent inspection, the engineer vide its spot inspection report dated 15.11.2014 observed that damage on tread area was due to bruise/penetration by an external sharp object/road hazard and tyre does not suffer from any manufacturing defect hence not covered under warranty. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

5. Opposite party No.1 appeared on notice but subsequently absented itself from the proceedings and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

6 In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and closed evidence.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.R2/1 and Ex.2/2 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP3/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP3/1 and Ex.OP3/2 and closed evidence.

8. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsels for the opposite parties No.2 and 3.

9. The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. The complainant purchased the tractor on 6.5.2013 vide retail invoice Ex.C1. In the tractor, the tyres manufactured by opposite party No.3 company were fitted. In para 5 of the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that while cultivating his own agriculture land, the rear tyre "Vajra Super" alongwith its tube damaged/cracked on 20.9.2014. So one tyre of the tractor was damaged after plying of the tractor for more than one year and four months. In case there was any manufacturing defect in the tyre of the tractor then it would not have run for such a long period. The opposite party No.3 has produced spot inspection report Ex.OP3/2 wherein it is mentioned by the engineer of opposite party No.3 that on observation it was found that damage on tread area due to bruise/penetration by an external sharp object/road hazard and tyre does not suffer any manufacturing defect. So above said report disprove the version of the complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the tyre. As already observed, in case there was manufacturing defect in the tyre then it would not have run for more than one year and four months. It is quite possible and probable that damage on the trade area might have been due to penetration by a external sharp object/road hazard. The complainant has not led any reliable evidence to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the tyre in question. He has also not examined any expert witness to prove this fact.

10. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

16.06.2015 Member Member President