Haryana

StateCommission

A/985/2017

RAJBIR KHATANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MALIK TOYOTA - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT SINGLA

29 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      985 of 2017

Date of Institution:      17.08.2017

Date of Decision :       29.09.2017

 

Rajbir Khatana s/o Sh. Mahabir Singh, Resident of House No.268-269, Sector 15-A, Hisar.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s Malik Toyota, Malik Automotives Private Limited, Mile Stone, NH-65, Chandigarh Road, Hisar through its Managing Director.

2.      Good Year India Limited, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad through its Managing Director.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.            

 

Argued by:          Shri Amit Singla, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated July 11^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’).    

2.                Rajbir Khatana-complainant (appellant herein) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he purchased a new Toyota Innova (GX) car bearing registration No.HR-20AD-3551 on February 16^th, 2015 from M/s Malik Toyota, Malik Automotive Limited-Opposite Party No.1. The complainant was given assurance that this car vehicle being Luxury car will not create any type of problem at least for a period of 5-7 years. Innova car vehicle is having Good Year Tyres which is of very good quality. The complainant was assured that the tyres fitted in the car vehicle shall not raise any complaint up to a distance of 5000 Kms. Surprisingly, front tyre of the vehicle developed a cut on its wall  within two months of its purchase. When the complainant filed complaint on April 30^th, 2015 in this regard before the opposite party No.1, he was asked to bring tyre and vehicle to the premises of agency of the opposite party No.1 on May 02^nd, 2015. On that date, the opposite party No.1 sent an email complaint but the complaint was rejected. An engineer of the Company gave his opinion that tyres of the car were not entitled for warranty replacement. Thereafter, the complainant submitted a complaint on Good Year India Limited helpline number on May 06^th, 2015 and complaint was registered at No.QO605150154. The complainant was later on informed that the tyre will be inspected on May 16^th, 2015 in the premises of Gudier Dealer at Auto Market, Hisar. The representative of the company inspected the tyre only for a period of 10 seconds and rejected complainant’s claim. Facing this situation, the complainant again visited the office of the opposite party No.1 and submitted his complaint to the officers of the company. Cracks appeared in the tyres of the vehicle within warranty period. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the tyre and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

3.                The opposite party No.1 in its written version has taken plea that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form.  The opposite party No.1 has taken plea that as per “Warranty Reference Guide” Clause 7.7, Tyre, Audio & Battery are termed as Originally Equipped (OE) and as such warranty is handled by respective manufacturer. The opposite party No.2 is manufacturer of the tyre sought to be replaced by the complainant. Claim of the complainant which was forwarded to the opposite party No.2 Good Year India Limited has already been rejected by the manufacturer. The complainant can seek relief, if any, only against the opposite party No.2. It is denied that front tyre of the vehicle developed a cut on its wall. The vehicle along with fitted tyre of Good Year Limited was handed over to the complainant in a good and satisfactory condition and the complainant was also satisfied with the condition and quality of the tyres at the time of delivery. In this way, the opposite party No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation as prayed in the complaint. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The Opposite Party No.2 – Good Year India Limited filed its separate written version on the plea that the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum. The defect as stated to have developed in the tyre in question, is a cut/cut penetration in the side wall area of the tyre. Such damage to the side wall of a tyre is usually caused by not giving due consideration to obvious road hazards and by not exercising due care while driving over external objects on the road which may penetrate into the tyres. The tyres are manufactured under the bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification and an appropriate mark is embedded on the side wall of every tyre it manufactures. The opposite party No.2 after receiving complaint on May 06^th, 2015 deputed a tyre expert Shri Manoj Patel, having an experience of seven years and six months in dealing with tyres and its related defects. Shri Manoj Patel has acquired knowledge and skill through study and practice over the years. Tyre was inspected on May 16^th, 2015 within six working days of receipt of the complaint in line with the “Warranty Policy” and the “Process For Claiming Warranty” of the Company which is a public document and displayed widely including on the website of the Company. Till the time of inspection, the vehicle had already covered 2860 Kms distance. Manoj Patel, expert had opined that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. If there would have been any such manufacturing defect, it would not have been possible to cover distance of 2860 Kms by use of that tyre. The complainant is not entitled to receive any amount as claimed in the complaint. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

6.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated July 11^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated July 11^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal bearing No.985 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to grant relief to the complainant as prayed in the complaint.

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

9.                From the pleadings and record on the file, there appears to be no controversy of any type that the above mentioned Toyota Innova (GX) vehicle bearing registration No.HR-20AD-3551 was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 – M/s Malik Toyota on February 16^th, 2015. As per version of the complainant, within two months from the date of purchase, during warranty period, the front tyre of the vehicle developed a cut on its wall. In this regard complaint was filed with the opposite party No.2 – Manufacturer of the vehicle. The vehicle was brought to the premises of the agency of opposite party No.1 on May 02^nd, 2015. The claim of the complainant was declined as an engineer of the company observed that the tyre was not entitled for warranty replacement. Thereafter, complaint was sent to the opposite party No.2 – Good Year India Limited, on May 06^th, 2015. The tyre was inspected by Shri Manoj Patel, a tyre expert, directed by the opposite party No.2, who opined that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. In the inspection report (Annexure R/2) it is mentioned that the vehicle had already covered distance of 2860 Kms and made observations as under:-

“On observation found through damage from sidewall area due to bruise against penetration by on External sharp object/Road hazard. Tyre does not suffer from any manufacturing defect hence not covered under claim warranty.”

10.              We feel observations made in his report by tyre expert Shri Manoj Patel, cannot be disbelieved. It appears that the defect occurred in the tyre due to penetration by an external sharp object/road hazard. The complainant did not examine any expert witness to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the tyre. An inherent manufacturing defect cannot be attributed to cut/cut penetration in the sidewall area of a tyre as the same is caused due to external factors such as penetration by an external object, pothole impact, rough operating conditions etc. Such type of damage can be caused to tyre by not exercising due care while driving over external objects on the road which may penetrate into a tyre. Moreover, burden was upon the complainant to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the tyre. In these circumstances, findings can be safely given that it was not a case of manufacturing defect in the tyre and the complainant is not entitled to receive any amount as compensation from the opposite party No.2. After going through Clause 7.7 of the “Warranty Reference Guide” replacement of tyre is not covered under warranty period provided by the opposite party No.1.

11.              As per discussions above in detailed, we find no illegality or invalidity in the impugned order dated July 11^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum. Findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed. We find no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed in limine.

 

Announced 29.09.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Balbir Singh Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

CL