Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/120/2020

Banarsi Lal S/o Ram Rakhamal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karnal Motor Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Kapoor

08 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    120 of 2020.

                                                                   Date of institution:         09.03.2020.

                                                                   Date of decision:  08.06.2022

 

Banarsi Lal Kapoor s/o Shri Ram Rakhamal, r/o H.No.1839, Sector-3, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd., Office at 156, Sector-2, Industrial Area, Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor/Authorized person.
2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., registered office: Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110071, through its Managing Director.
3. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., registered office: Plot No.A43, Phase-II, MIDC Chakan, Village Sawardari, Taluka Khed, District Pune, Maharashtra, India, through its Authorized person.
4. Gupta Tyre Traders, Opp. Bus Stand, G.T. Road, Pipli, District Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor.

...Respondents.

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Rohtash Jangam, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Opposite Parties No.2,3 & 4 ex-parte.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (previously Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that by attracting with the advertisement and assurances of OPs, the complainant purchased one car Ertiga Smart Hybrid ZXI on 15.12.2018 from OP No.1 and later on said car was registered vide Registration No.HR07AA-8894. He also purchased Royal Platinum extended warranty of the said car for Rs.15,281/- and said warranty was valid upto 14.12.2023 or up to 1,00,000 kms. In the night of 29.01.2020, at about 01:30 AM, he along with his family members returned from Patiala to Kurukshetra on the said car, when they reached on the flyover of Shahabad Markanda, the left rear tyre of car blasted/ripped out and due to heavy blast, the balance of vehicle got disturbed and he and his family members saved them with great difficulties. On the same day, he visited the OP No.1 and informed regarding the said incident as well as damage to the car, who told that tyre in the car is third party manufacturer and the matter referred to OP No.3. The OP No.3 made inspection on 07.02.2020 by their authorized service centre i.e. OP No.4, who made claim inspection report of said tyre and told that tyres came with the car was not covered in the warranty condition. It is further alleged that the on 11.02.2020, the complainant purchased new tyre as it was necessary for the vehicle for Rs.4950/- from OP No.4. There was manufacturing defect in the said tyre and the OPs had failed to replace it. He was entitled to new tyre, but the OPs refused to replace the same, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement, whereas, OPs No.3 & 4 failed to appear before this Commission on 19.03.2021 despite issuance of notice upon them through registered post and were proceeded against ex-parte on that date by this Commission. Initially, Shri Ajay Saini, Advocate appeared for OP No.2, but on 03.3.2022 & 17.03.2022, no one appeared for OP No.2 and accordingly, on 17.03.2022, OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                OP No.1 in its written statements stating therein that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission. The true and material facts of the case are that OP No.1 is authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. for Karnal and Kurukshetra and the vehicles are sold after complete security checks conducted by the manufacturer i.e. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. All the component and accessories was fixed by the manufacturing company and OP No.1 is not liable for any deficiency. The complainant never approached OP No.1 qua the replacement of his damaged tyre, rather he filed the present complaint before this Commission in order to extract money from it, so present complaint deserves dismissal.

5.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed its evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased one car Ertiga Smart Hybrid ZXI on 15.12.2018 from OP No.1 and later on said car was registered vide Registration No.HR07AA-8894. The complainant also purchased Royal Platinum extended warranty of the said car for Rs.15281/- and said warranty was valid upto 14.12.2023 or up to 1,00,000 kms. He further argued that in the night of 29.01.2020, at about 01:30 AM, the complainant along with his family members returned from Patiala to Kurukshetra on the said car, when they reached on the flyover of Shahabad Markanda, the left rear tyre of car blasted/ripped out and due to heavy blast, the balance of vehicle got disturbed and he and his family members saved them with great difficulties. On the same day, the complainant visited OP No.1 and informed regarding the said incident as well as damage to the car, who told that tyre in the car is third party manufacturer and the matter referred to OP No.3. The OP No.3 made inspection on 07.02.2020 by their authorized service centre i.e. OP No.4, who made claim inspection report of said tyre and told that tyres came with the car was not covered in the warranty condition. It is further alleged that the on 11.02.2020, the complainant purchased new tyre as it was necessary for the vehicle for Rs.4950/- from OP No.4. There was manufacturing defect in the said tyre and the OPs had failed to replace it, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

9.                The learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that OP No.1 is authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. for Karnal and Kurukshetra and the vehicles are sold after complete security checks conducted by the manufacturer i.e. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. All the component and accessories was fixed by the manufacturing company and OP No.1 is not liable for any deficiency. The complainant never approached OP No.1 qua the replacement of his damaged tyre, rather he filed the present complaint before this Commission in order to extract money from it, so present complaint deserves dismissal.

10.              There is no dispute between the parties that on 15.12.2018, complainant purchased Ertiga car from OP No.1 having Registration No.HR07AA-8894, manufactured by OP No.2, and said car was insured with HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited w.e.f. 14.12.2019 to 14.12.2021 vide insurance policy Ex.C-2. There is also no dispute that the car in question was provided extended warranty till 14.12.2023 or up to 1,00,000 kilometers and in this regard complainant paid Rs.15,281/-, as is evident from Tax Invoice Cum Certificate of Extended Warranty Registration dated 15.12.2018 Ex.C-3.

11.              The complainant contended that on 29.01.2020 when he along with his family members returned from Patiala to Kurukshetra on the said car and when they reached on the flyover of Shahabad Markanda, the left rear tyre of car blasted/ripped out and due to heavy blast and on the same day, he visited the OP No.1 and informed regarding the said incident as well as damage to the car, who told that tyre in the car is third party manufacturer and the matter referred to OP No.3 and in this regard, drawn attention of this Commission towards Job Card Retail – Tax Invoice dated 29.01.2020, issued by OP No.1 in favour of complainant Ex.C-4. From perusal of said Job Card Ex.C-4, we found that the complainant contacted to OP No.1 on 29.01.2020 regarding damage to the tyre of his car and in the column “Recommendations” of said Job Card, it is mentioned “MATTER SEND TO BRIDGSTONE TYRE VENDER” i.e. OP No.3 in the case in hand.

12.              The complainant further contended that on the asking of OP No.1, he approached to OP No.3, and authorized service centre of OP No.3 i.e. OP No.4 inspected the tyre in question and produced “Claim Inspection Report” as Ex.C-5 on the case file. On perusing the said document, we found that the said document was issued by OP No.3 and in its column “INSPECTION DATE”, the inspection date was mentioned as 07.02.2020 (as alleged by the complainant) and in column “Complaint”, it is mentioned “side wall cut”. So, from the above contentions of the complainant as well as perusing the documents, till now, it is gathered that on 29.01.2020, left rear tyre of car in question was damaged and in this regard on asking by OP No.1, the complainant approached the OP No.3, where, OP No.4 (authorized service centre of OP No.3) on 07.02.2020 inspected the said damaged tyre and produced Claim Inspection Report Ex.C-5.

13.              In the column “Remarks” of said Claim Inspection Report Ex.C-5, there is mentioned that “Since such kind of damage is not attributable to manufacturing defect. Thereby your claim of replacement could not be accepted”. In the column “Engineer Remark” of said report Ex.C-5, it is further mentioned that Sidewall cut penetration in tyre due to impact of some sharp external object no manufacturing fault in tyre”. From the above report, it is clear that the OP No.3 rejected the claim of complainant on the ground that the tyre was not suffering from any manufacturing defect, whereas, complainant contended the tyre in question was damaged as it was suffering from manufacturing defect and the OPs wrongly and illegally refused to replace the same and rejected his claim vide Claim Inspection Report Ex.C-5. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.3 failed to produce any documentary evidence on the case to prove that the said damage to the tyre in question was not a manufacturing defect and justify the rejection of the claim of the complainant, because, it failed to appear before this Commission and was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte and without any documentary proof, the above plea, taken by OP No.3, in rejecting the claim of the complainant, cannot be believed. In this regard, contention of complainant that tyre was damaged due to manufacturing defect in it, is believable.

14.              To support his contentions, complainant further produced photographs of tyre on the case file as Ex.C-6 to C-9 respectively and in these photographs, there is shown a cut mark in the tyre and there is also mentioned Serial No.4WLXDKL in the tyre and the same serial number is also mentioned in the Claim Inspection Report Ex.C-5 issued by the OP No.3 in favour of the complainant, so from above, it is clear that the photographs Ex.C6 to Ex.C9, produced by the complainant, was of the tyre of the car in question of the complainant and there was a cut mark in the tyre.

15.              The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the damage to the left tyre in question was a manufacturing defect and the same is falling within the warranty policy, issued by the OP No.3. In this regard, he drawn attention of this Commission towards “Warranty Certificate” issued by OP No.3 in favour of complainant (registered on 11.02.2020) vide Warranty ID No.BTWR210415 Ex.C-13 and its para No.4 of Clause “Warranty Policy” is relevant which reads as under:-

“4.    Tyre & Tubes shall be covered under Warranty for manufacturing defects only for a period of 5 years from date of manufacturing; or 3 years from date of purchase; or till the exposure of tread wear indicators, whichever is earlier, irrespective of kilometer covered”.

         

16.              From the above clause, it is evident that tyres and tubes of OP No.3 company shall cover the warranty for manufacturing defect only for a period of 5 years from the manufacturing or 3 years from date of purchase. In the case in hand, it is evident that the complainant purchased the car in question on 15.12.2018 and its left rear tyre was damaged on 29.01.2020 i.e. after about more than one year from the date of purchase of said car, by the complainant from OP No.1, meaning thereby, as per above-mentioned “Warranty Policy” issued by OP No.3 himself, the tyre in question was damaged due to manufacturing defect in it, during the warranty period of 3 years and as such, the OPs No.1 to 3 were liable to replace the same with new one, but they did not do so. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that when the OPs failed to replace the tyre in question for a long time, then the complainant was left with no other option except to purchase the new tyre from OP No.4 and produced Tax Invoice in this regard as Ex.C-11 on the case file. From perusal of this document Ex.C11, it is clear that the complainant purchased a new tyre on 11.02.2020, from the OP No.4, for a sum of Rs.4950/-.

17.               Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the tyre of the car of the complainant was damaged during the warranty period of three years and as per Warranty Policy, the OPs No.1 to 3 were duty bound to replace the same with new one, they did not do so, rather they tried to shift the burden on each other, which is an act of gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 to 3, and due to their above act, the complainant suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss and lastly forced to change the said tyre with new one by spending Rs.4950/- from his own pocket. For their above act of gross deficiency in service, the OPs, not only liable to refund the amount of new tyre amounting Rs.4950/- to the complainant, but also liable to pay the compensation amount and litigations expenses to the complainant. Throughout the complaint, complainant has not specifically alleged any act of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.4, therefore, complaint qua respondent No.4 is liable to be dismissed.

18.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OPs No.1 to 3 and dismiss the same against OP No.4 and direct the OPs No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund Rs.4950/- (cost of new tyre) to the complainant, The OPs No.1 to 3 are also directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.2,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to an act of deficiency in service, on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3, alongwith Rs.3,000/-, as litigation expenses. The OPs No.1 to 3 are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the award amount of Rs.4950/- shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization and the complainant shall also be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Act against the OPs No.1 to 3. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:08.06.2022.

 

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                  DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.