Punjab

Sangrur

CC/651/2014

Gumail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

J K Tyree & Industries Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sat Paul Sharma

04 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    651  

                                                Instituted on:      11.12.2014

                                                Decided on:       04.06.2015

 

 

Gurmail Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Katron, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.             JK Tyre & Industries Ltd. Regd. Office, Near All India Radio, GT Road, Jalandhar through its Managing Director.

2.             Jindal Tyres, authorised dealer of JK Tyres, College Road, Malerkotla, Tehsil and District Sangrur through its partner or Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Satpal Sharma, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member.

 

1.             Shri Gurmail Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased ten tyres for Rs.20,000/- per tyre from OP number 1 for his truck from OP number 2 with the guarantee of any manufacturing defect. OP number 1 is the manufacturer of the tyres and OP number 2 is the authorised dealer of OP number 1. It is further averred that after some days from the date of purchase of the tyres in question, one tyre swell up from its one side due to manufacturing defect and the complainant approached Op number 2 and requested to remove the problem of the tyre or change it with a new one. Thereafter  OP number 2 sent the tyre in question to the company i.e. OP number 1 for its replacement and as such the complainant purchased a new tyre amounting to Rs.20,800/- from OP number 2 vide bill number 1160 dated 30.8.2013. It is further stated that the complainant received a message from OP number 1 on his mobile that the OP has accepted the claim of the complainant and offered the replacement of tyre at 35% wear. But, the complainant visited the OP number 2 so many times, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the tyre with a new one or in the alternative to refund the price of the tyre along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that there is no expert opinion along with complaint regarding the manufacturing defect, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits,  it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the tyres in question, however, it has been denied that after some days of purchase of the tyres, one tyre allegedly swell up as alleged.  One tyre was submitted with OP number 1 by OP number 2 and after inspecting the tyre, the said tyre was approved for replacement as per award dated 24.10.2013. It is stated that after deducting the depreciation, the complainant was found entitled for an amount of Rs.5305/- and the said amount has been adjusted in the account of OP number 2.   Any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1 has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2, it has been denied that the complainant purchased 10 tyres from OP number 2, as such the allegations in the complaint have been denied.  It has been further denied that the tyre in question was handed over for replacement from the alleged ten tyres.  It is stated that OP number 2 is the authorised agent of JK Tyres at Malerkotla. The complainant first time visited OP number 2 on 30.8.2013 and purchased one Ceat Radial tyre vide bill number 1160 for Rs.20,800/-.  The OP number 2 to help the complainant offered to send his tyre to OP number 1 and sent the same accordingly, but OP number 1 rejected the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 24.10.2013 with the observation that the tyre is having through cuts, but the OP with the intention to help the complainant requested the higher authorities for considering the tyre for replacement.  Ultimately, the said tyre was passed on 10.1.2015 and the replacement award dated 10.1.2015 was sent to OP as well as to the complainant.  As per the instructions of the company, OP had to replace the tyre of same company if the complainant pays the amount of Rs.5305/-. It is stated further that the complainant did not purchase the disputed tyres from the OP nor has paid anything in this respect, so the complainant is not a consumer of OP number 2. Any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 2 has been denied. 

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of claim form, Ex.C-3 copy of claim receipt, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-5 copies of replacement award, Ex.C-6 copy of bill and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.Op-1 copy of claim receipt, Ex.OP-2 copy of letter, Ex.OP-3 copy of claim form, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter, Ex.Op-5 and Ex.OP-6 affidavits and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

6.             The complainant has alleged in the complaint that he purchased ten tyres manufactured by OP number 1 from OP number 2 for Rs.20,000/- each tyre.  But, a bare perusal of the file clearly reveals that he has not produced on record any copy of such bill/cash memo showing that he purchased the same from OP number 1.  Further in the complaint even the complainant has not mentioned any bill number or date showing the purchase of the tyres in question from OP number 2.  Moreover, the OP number 2 has clearly denied the sale of such ten tyres to the complainant.  As such, it is contended by the learned counsel for Op number 2 that the complainant is not at all a consumer of the OP number 2. 

 

7.             Further we have perused the copy of replacement award dated 10.01.2015 whereby the OPs offered the complainant a new tyre in lieu of the above product for Rs.5305/- plus taxes and the offer was made by the Op number 1 to the complainant for 21 days, but the complainant himself failed to accept the offer made by OP during the prescribed time.  Ex.C-5 is another copy of replacement award dated 24.10.2013 whereby the complainant was offered a new tyre in lieu of the defective tyre subject to payment of Rs.4905/-, but the complainant himself failed to accept that offer also.  In the circumstances, since the complainant himself has neither mentioned the date of purchase of the tyres in question  nor the name of the dealer from whom the same were purchase, we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant that he is entitled to get any claim from the OPs.  Further there is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not disclose the date of purchase of the tyres and from whom the same were purchased by him.  As such, we find that the complainant himself is a wrong doer and find further that he is not entitled to get any claim under the circumstances of the present case.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 4, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member