Complainant in person.
M/s. Khurjekar & Associates for the Opponent No.1
Advocate Nilesh Bhandari for the Opponent No.2.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 17th July 2013
This complaint is filed by consumer against the dealer of the car and manufacturer of the Tyre Company for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant has purchased Getz Prime GVS Model 4 wheeler car from the Opponent No.1 on 31/05/2007. After running 12,000 kms. of the vehicle one of the tyre i.e. rear side of the driver’s seat got bubble automatically to the exterior wall of the tyre and became faulty. This fact was communicated to the Opponent who is the Dealer of the said car. But it has avoided its responsibility and directed fingers towards the Opponent No.2 who is the manufacturer of the tyre. Then complainant made complaint to the Opponent No.2 and the tyre was inspected. According to the Opponent No.2 there was no fault in the tyre. According to the complainant he had expected that the tyre should run for about 40,000 kms without any defect. But it got bubble after running 12000 kms only. Hence he has filed this complaint and claimed price of the tyre i.e. to the tune of Rs.2300/-, price of the tube Rs.250/-. He has also claimed compensation of Rs.55,000/- for mental and physical sufferings. He has further asked compensation for deficiency in service and cost of complaint to the tune of Rs.35,000/-. The total claim of the complainant is Rs.92,550/-.
[2] Opponents resisted the complaint the claim by filing written version. It is flatly denied by both of them that there is deficiency in service as well as defect in goods which is supplied to the complainant. They have contended that the defect arise in the tyre due to bad driving habit of the complainant and there is no fault of the Opponents. It is the case of the Opponent No.1 that there is no defect in the engine of the car and the warranty is not given by the dealer as regards tyre and tubes and the Opponent No.2 alone is responsible for compensation if any as it has provided the same. Both Opponents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, hearing the argument of both counsel and considering the pleadings following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has proved deficiency in service as well as defect in the goods ? | In the affirmative |
2 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
Reasons
As to the Point Nos. 1 and 2-
Undisputedly complainant has purchased four wheeler from the Opponent No.1 on which the tyres and tubes were mounted which were supplied by the Opponent No.2. It is the case of the complainant that the tyre got bubble automatically to the exterior wall of the tyre and became faulty after running of the vehicle for 12000 kms. In order to substantiate defect in the goods the complainant has mostly relied upon the Inspection Report which is given by the Opponent No.2. It reveals from the said report that the tyres were torn on the right rear tyre have one side heal and toe. Rest of the tyres were o.k. It reveals from the office copy of the notice which was served upon the Opponent No.1 that the complainant has informed that out of the five tyres only three tyres were replaced. It is also contended by the complainant that there was certain noise while running the said car and that noise was vanished when the tyres were replaced. This indicates that there was manufacturing defect in the tyres so that the Opponent No.1 had replaced three tyres. If there was no defect in the tyres the Opponent No.1 would not replaced those tyres. It reveals from the record that the complainant had run the vehicle for 12,000 kms. and life of the tyre is for about 40,000 kms. Hence I held that the complainant is not entitled for the total price of the tyre and he is entitled for 2/3rd of the price which is claimed by him i.e. Rs.1700/-Complainant is also entitled to receive Rs.2,000/- for mental and physical sufferings and Rs.3,000/- for cost of the proceeding as well as miscellaneous expenses. Opponent No.1 had supplied the car and the Opponent No.2 had supplied the tyre. Hence I held that both of the Opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation.
I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the Opponents have caused deficiency in service by supplying defective tyre.
3. The Opponent No2.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.6700/- to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. Parties are directed to collect the sets provided for the Hon’ble Member within one month from the date of order. Else those will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place- Pune
Date – 17/07/2013
