BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 223 of 2013
Date of Institution : 20.12.2013
Date of Decision : 25.11.2016
Bhagmal aged about 40 years son of Shri Moti Ram, resident of village Dalpatpura, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Kumar Tyre Centre, Opp. Radha Swami Satsang Ghar, Hisar Road, Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ authorized dealer.
2. CEAT Ltd., JBJ House, 50-A/1, 1st Floor, NIT Industrial Area, Faridabad- 121001 through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Pankaj Bansal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Manish Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Aashish Singla, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief is that he had purchased a tube and tyre for his tractor from opposite party no.1 for which op no.1 had charged an amount of Rs.42,600/- from him vide bill No.2018 dated 16.4.2012 and had given two years warranty. The complainant started using the tyre and tube by putting in his tractor but since the day of its purchase, the said tube could not work properly in the tyre of the tractor and had given troubles. The complainant immediately thereafter contacted the op no.1 and requested to get the same replaced but op no.1 assured the complainant that same will be repaired and kept the same with him. After one month, when the complainant visited the shop of op no.1, he stated that there is a manufacturing defect in the tube and same will be given to its manufacturer for replacement and issued a receipt on 10.6.2013 for claim. Now, for the last more than six months, the tube in question is lying with op no.1 and complainant is making rounds to the shop of op no.1. About a week ago, op no.1 stated to the complainant that tube has been sent for replacement to op no.2 and he will contact op no.2 for its replacement or refund of sale price. In this way, the op no.1 intentionally and malafidely harassed the complainant for about six months. The complainant is resident of village Dalpatpura, Distt. Hanumangarh which is 80 Kms. away from Sirsa and on each and every visit, he has to spend an amount of Rs.300/- as expenses for his visit. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 filed written statement and pleaded that complainant has put forth a false story regarding the rate of alleged tube. In fact, he had purchased two tubes at the rate of Rs.1800/- each. The complainant approached the answering op for the claim of the tube. At the request of complainant, the answering op forwarded the claim of one tube which was in a punctured condition and complainant has used the tube in a punctured condition for a long distance. There was no manufacturing defect in the alleged tube. In the presence of the complainant, the engineer from the ceat company visited the shop of answering op for settlement of claim but the engineer repudiated the claim of complainant as there was no manufacturing defect found in the tube. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its separate written statement averred that answering op as per practice, in respect of a claim for an alleged defect, the tyre(s) and/or tube(s) are returned to answering op and the claim items are duly inspected and thereafter adjusted or rejected stating the reasons thereof by the Technical personnel of the answering op. In the present case, the answering op has not received the tube referred to in the complaint for inspection and therefore, the answering op has not been given opportunity to inspect the tube with regard to any alleged manufacturing defect.
4. In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 16.4.2012 Ex.C2, copy of receipt of tube for claim Ex.C3. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.R1, copy of power of attorney Ex.R2. OP no.1 tendered his affidavit Ex.R3.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has alleged defect in one tube of Ceat company since the day of its purchase i.e. 16.4.2012. According to him he immediately contacted op no.1 and requested him to get the same replaced and said tube was kept by op no.1 for repair. After one month, when he visited op no.1, he stated that there is a manufacturing defect in the tube and same will be given to its manufacture for replacement and issued a receipt on 10.6.2013 for claim. The complainant has placed on file copy of that receipt dated 10.6.2013 issued by op no.1 as Ex.C3. Both the opposite parties i.e. op no.1 and op no.2 have given contradictory versions. OP no.1 has asserted that in the presence of complainant, the engineer from the company visited his shop for settlement of claim but the engineer repudiated the claim as there was no manufacturing defect in the tube. Whereas op no.2 has averred that in the present case, the op no.2 has not been given opportunity to inspect the tube with regard to any alleged manufacturing defect. It has come on record that the tube in question is lying with opposite party no.1 since long and complainant cannot be blamed if same has not been sent by op no.1 to op no.2 for inspection and settlement of claim. So, complainant is entitled to replacement of tube in question with new one and both the parties are liable for the same.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the tube in question with new one of same price within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 25.11.2016 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
