Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/20/228

Pankaj Puri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jerath Auto Mobiles & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sanjeev Soni, Adv.

16 Dec 2021

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

 

                                               Consumer Complaint No.228of 2020

                                              Date of institution: 11.12.2020

                                              Date of Decision: 16.12.2021

 

 

Pankaj Puri aged about 37 years, son of Manohar Lal Puri, Village and Post Office Bhanupali, Tehsil Nangal, District

…….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Jerath Automobiles Railway Road Nangal, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar, through its Prop.
2. JK Tyres Industries Limited, Bye Pass Road, Jalandhar 144009 through its Prop.
3. JK Tyre Industries Limited, B-5, JK Gram JK Tyre Factory Kankroli Udaipur Rajasthan 313332 through its Proprietor/Managing Director.      

                                                             ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Ranjit Singh, President.

                       Capt. Y.S. Matta, Member

 

Present:    Sh. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, for complainant 

               OP No.1 exparte

               Sh. Jarnail Singh, Advocate, for OP No.2

               Complaint not admitted against OP No.3

              
 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Ranjit Singh, President

 

Order

 

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant had purchased four tyres of JK tyre company from the OP No.1 on 31.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.67600/- against bill No.2799 dated 31.10.2020. At the time of purchasing the said tyres, the OP No.1 had assured that JK company is having good reputation in the market of their product and OP No.1 insisted him to purchase the tyres of JK Company and due to allurement of OP No.1, the complainant had purchased the four tyres of JK company. The tyre in question was purchased by the complainant for the truck bearing No.PB-12-M-9295, on 07.11.2020, the complainant has loaded the truck with Urea Khad from NFL Nangal to Hoshiarpur, when complainant reached in the area of Mahalpur then suddenly one rear tyre of driver side bursted due to its manufacturing defect. Then, the complainant approached the OP No.1 and told about the burst of the tyre and then OP No.1 has referred the claim of the complainant to the OP No.2 for the replacement of the tyre on 12.11.2020 but the OP No.2 has rejected the claim vide their letter dated 28.11.2020. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

1. To replace the tyre with new one or to pay Rs.16900/- as cost of the tyre
2. To pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental, physical and financial harassment caused to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses along with interest thereon @ 18% per annum from 31.3.2020 till realization.  

 2.        In reply, the OP No.1 has choosen to remain exparte vide order of this Commission dated 08.01.2021.

3.         The O.P. No.2 has filed reply taking preliminary objections: that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint has not been framed as required by law; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands; that the complainant is not a consumer to the OPs; that the principal of estoppels may be applied against the complainant due to his own act and conduct as the complainant is not entitled to any relief from this Commission as alleged by him on account of his own act and conduct. On merits, it is stated that the tyres had purchased by the complainant from OP No.1, but the complainant was not having any commercial truck neither he is driver by profession nor driving the truck in question. The tyres in question is installed in the truck No.PB-12-M-9295 of one Sunil Kumar, resident of Village Bhanupali, who is registered owner of the truck. The tyres in question was purchased by one Pankaj Puri and sold to Sunil Kumar. The complainant was neither owner of the truck nor driving the said truck as alleged by him. On 18.11.2020, the tyre in question was carefully examined on the request of the complainant by the technical expert of the company and after its examination, it was found that the failure is not due to any manufacturing defect, rather the tyre has been failed due to crown concussion/burst/impact break as overloaded/over inflation, sudden impact on tread by an external/sharp objection during service, running of tyre over potholes at high speed cut induced concussion.  Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on their part, the O.P. No.2 has denied any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismiss the complaint.

4.           The learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along   with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered some documents like copy of warranty claim Ex. OP1, copy of tyre condition Ex. OP2 and closed the evidence.

5.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file along with written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant, carefully and minutely.

6.           The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased the four tyres of JK tyre company and the same was installed in the truck bearing No.PB-12-M-9295 but after short span of its purchase, the one rear tyre of driver side was burst due to its manufacturing defect. Despite repeated requests to the OPs by the complainant, the OPs neither replace the tyre in question nor refund the amount of the tyre. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that no affidavit along with expert opinion has been filed by the OPs. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint with cost.

7.           The learned counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that complainant is not a consumer as the tyre was purchased by one Pankaj Puri but the tyre was installed in the truck bearing No. PB-12-M-95, which was in the name of one Sunil Kumar. Sunil Kumar is the registered owner of the said truck. Registration Certificate was also in the name of Sunil Kumar. The complainant was sold the tyres in question to Sunil Kumar. He further argued that the complainant is not having a commercial truck neither he is driver by profession nor driving the truck in question. Even, technical expert report is also submitted by the answering OP, in which the technical expert opined that product/tyre has been failed due to crown concussion/burst/impact break. The complainant has not produce any expert report, which shows that the tyre in question was busted due to manufacturing defect. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8.           It is pertinent to mention here that Pankaj Puri, complainant was the driver of the truck bearing No.PB-12-M-9295 and had purchased the tyre in question for the said truck by the complainant from the OPs. So, the plea taken by the OP No.2 that complainant is not a consumer is out rightly rejected.

9.           From the perusal of the file, we feel, that deficiency stands proved and the complaint deserves to be allowed because purchased one of the tyre burst and damaged within the warranty period.. 

10.         In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present compliant stands allowed with the following directions to the Ops No.1 & 2:-

1. To replace the tyre in question with new one within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 

2.        To a lum sum amount to the tune of Rs.15,000/- as  compensation and litigation expenses.

3.        Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

Announced

December 16, 2021

(Ranjit Singh)

 

                                            

 

(Capt YS Matta)