Haryana

StateCommission

A/591/2016

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGDISH SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ MAINI

01 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    591 of 2016

Date of Institution:  01.07.2016

Date of Decision:    01.12.2016

 

M/s Goodyear India Ltd., 1^st Floor, ABW Elegance Tower, Plot No.8, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110025.

 

….Appellant-Opposite Party No.3

 

Versus

 

1.      Jagdish Singh, Post Office Bhalout, Tehsil & District Rohtak-124001, Haryana.

….Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      M/s Srishti Motors Pvt. Ltd., Partner, Opp. New Power House, Near Jind Bye Pass Road, Rohtak-126102, Haryana.

 

                                      ….Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

3.      Ms. Hyundai Motors India Ltd., Partner.

 

….Respondent No.3-Opposite Party No.2

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                         

 

Present:     Ms. Pala Jain, proxy counsel for Mr. Pankaj Maini, counsel for the appellant.

                   None for the respondent No.1.

                   (Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated September 27^th, 2016)

 

                            

O R D E R

 

 B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

M/s Goodyear India Limited-opposite party No.3 has filed the present appeal against the order dated 09^th June, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘District Forum’) vide which complaint filed by Jagdish Singh-complainant was allowed and opposite party No.3-appellant was directed to replace the tyres and also to pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.      Jagdish Singh-complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the allegation that he purchased a car make Hyundai Santro from Srishti Motors Pvt. Ltd.-opposite party No.1 manufactured by opposite party No.2, on 16^th January, 2011. It had tyres fitted manufactured by opposite party No.3-appellant. There was a warranty of one year for tyres or upto 40000 kilometers. The tyres did not give requisite performance and there was a bulging of tyre. Complainant complained to opposite party No.2 who referred the matter to the opposite party no.3, who inspected the tyres and admitted the uneven wear of tyres, however, denied that there was manufacturing defect. 

3.      The Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint. Opposite party No.1 in its reply admitted the sale of car as well as the tyres fitted being of Goodyear India Limited-opposite party No.3, however, denied any deficiency on their part. Hyundai Motors India Limited-opposite party No.2 also admitted the car being manufactured by them and that tyres fitted being manufactured by opposite party No.3, however, stated that the tyres and tubes including some other parts equipped on Hyundai Motors Vehicle were directly warranted by the respective manufacturers and not by Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Goodyear India Limited-opposite party No.3 raised the plea that on spot inspection of the vehicle by representative of opposite party No.3, who was a qualified Engineer, and submitted his report, with the observation that all five tyres were having Irregular wear/Uneven wear, however, the same was due to variety of conditions. They denied manufacturing defect of the tyres.

4.      District Forum after perusing the evidence, allowed the complaint and granted the relief as detailed earlier.

5.      Opposite party No.3 has come up in appeal.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the file.

7.      The appellant-opposite party No.3 in its written statement, in the preliminary objections itself has reproduced the Spot Inspection Report of the Engineer, which is reproduced here under:

All five tyres having Irregular wear/Uneven wear.

Observation: Tyres having irregular wear/Uneven wear—this is a condition attributed to variety of conditions like improper inflation/vehicle related anomalies (geometry/mechanical) & related to application which is not covered under GY warrantable condition.

 

It is not disputed that the vehicle was purchased on 16^th January, 2011 and the vehicle had run only 20270 kilometers till that time as admitted by the appellant. It is also not disputed that the tyres were within warranty period and has not run upto 40000 kilometers. Certainly the vehicle has neither run the requisite kilometers nor the period of warranty has expired. The admission by the Engineer of opposite party no.3 that all the tyres have irregular wear/Uneven wear by itself proves that the tyres’ supplied were not of the required standard and there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3-appellant. Thus, the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint and no interference in the impugned order is called for. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.15,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent no.1-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

December 01st  2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

 D.R.