Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/935/2013

Soni Kumar S/o. Shish Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager ,M/s Lamba Tyres - Opp.Party(s)

Karan Jeet Singh

12 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                          Complaint No. 935  of  2013.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 05.12.2013

                                                                                          Date of decision: 12.09.2016.

Sh. Soni Kumar aged about 30 years son of Sh. Shish Pal, resident of village Jharoli, P.S. Sarsawa, Distt. Saharanpur (UP). 

                                                                                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The Manager, M/s Lamba Tyres, J.K. Tyres Good Year, Ceat Ltd. Saharanpur Road, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. The Manager, M/s CEAT Tyres Limited Industries Area, Yamuna Nagar Sale and Service Office, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                …Respondents. 

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Karanjeet Singh,  Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Respondent No.1 already ex-parte.

              Sh. V.K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.             

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased one pair of tyres for his Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing registration No. UP-11T-7632 from respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as Op No.1) for a sum of Rs. 14,200/- i.e. Rs. 7100/- each on 09.04.2013 vide invoice No. 152 dated 09.04.2013. At the time of selling the tyres in question, the OP No.1 assured the complainant that both the tyres are manufactured by OP No.2 and are of good quality and having warranty i.e. in case of any damages, the tyres will be replaced by OP No.1 without any delay or charging any further amount/expenses. The complainant used the tyre in his said vehicle only for 5 days but after that both the tyres got damaged and complainant reported/informed to OpNo.1 about the same on 14.05.2013. Op No.1 kept the damaged tyres with him and assured the complainant that the tyres will be replaced as per instructions of Op No.2 but till date the OPs have neither replaced the tyre nor refund the sale consideration despite so many requests. This act and conduct of the OPs constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to replace the two tyres with new one or to return the sale price thereof i.e. Rs. 14,200/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.08.2014. OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as the tyres alleged to have failed were not produced before or presented to Op No.2 for inspection and therefore, the Op No.2 has not given any opportunity to examine the tyres and give its disposition to the cause of failure; OP No.2 is engaged in the manufacture and sale of tyres, tubes and flaps and sells the same to the dealers/original equipment manufacturers on a principal to principal basis under the terms and conditions of sale; there is a special procedure i.e. firstly any tyres, tubes under claim will be submitted to the dealer/O.E. manufacturer/ the company at its sales offices for inspection. On receipt of the tyres tubes under claim, the Op No.2 issued a claim receipt evidencing receipt of tyres, tubes. Subsequently, the item under complaint will be examined by the technical service engineer and its disposition will be communicated to the consumer with a copy of inspection report but in the present case tyres alleged to have failed were not produced before or presented to the Op No.2 for inspection, so, the OP No.2 has been deprived from examine the tyres and give its disposition to the cause of failure, if any and on merit all the allegations have been denied. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua Op No.2 being there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as bill bearing No. 152 dated 09.04.2013 amounting to Rs. 14,200/- as Annexure C-1, Visiting card as Annexure C-2, copy of legal notice as Annexure C-3, Postal receipt as Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. P.K. Malhotra as Annexure RW2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     The only plea of the complainant is that he purchased one pair of tyres for his Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing registration No. UP11T-7632 from Op No.1 dealer for a sum of Rs. 14,200/- manufactured by OpNo.2 i.e. Ceat Tyre Ltd. and just after 5 days both the tyres got damaged and complainant informed the Op No.1 about the damaged or defect in the tyre on 14.05.2013 and on 14.05.2013 complainant handed over the tyres to Op No.1 and Op No.1 assured the complainant that tyre will be replaced as per instructions of Op No.2 but till date the OPs have neither replaced the tyre nor refund the sale price of tyres and in support of his version he has tendered into evidence only copy of bill dated 09.04.2013 as Annexure C-1 and a visiting card as Annexure C-2 and legal notice with postal receipt as Annexure C-3 & C-4. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards visiting card Annexure C-2 and argued that the complainant handed over the tyres to Op No.1 which is evident from the copy of visiting card Annexure C-2. We have perused the visiting card Annexure C-2 carefully and minutely but nowhere mentioned in this card that the Op No.1 have received the tyres from the complainant, even, this visiting card does not bear any signature of any person or stamp of any firm. Mere tendering the visiting card does not prove that complainant ever handed over any tyres to the Op No.1. We have carefully perused the contents of the complaint in which nowhere mentioned that complainant ever produced the tyres or lodged any complaint with Op No.2 in respect of defect in the tyres in question. When no complaint whatsoever was ever lodged with the OP No.2 then no question arise for replacement of tyre or refund of the cost by Op No.2. Furthermore, the complainant has also failed to file any expert  report that tyre in questions were having any defect and in the absence of any cogent evidence, it cannot be held that the tyre in questions were defective and due to that the same were handed over to the Op No.1.

8.                     In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to file any cogent evidence by which he has handed over the tyres in question to Op No.1 and further the tyre in question were defective. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

9.                     Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 12.09.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT                                 

 

 

                                               

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                    MEMBER