Haryana

Kurukshetra

189/2018

Arvind Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Michlin India - Opp.Party(s)

Roshan Sharma

26 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 189 of 2018.

Date of instt. 04.09.2018. 

                                                                          Date of Decision: 26.08.2019

 

 

Arvind Goel son of Sh. Jai Kumar, resident of House No.49, Shanti Nagar, Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

1. Michelin India Private Ltd., Orchid Business Park, 3^rd Floor, Sector 48, Sohana Road, Gurugram (Haryana) 122022, through its authorized signatory.

 

2. M/S Kuber Tyres, Anaj Mandi Gate, near SBI ATM, Radaur Road, Ladwa (Kurukshetra), through its proprietor.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Sh. Roshan Sharma, Advocate for complainant.             

 Sh. Paras Manocha, Advocate for OP No.1.

 Sh. Rohit Jindal, Advocate for Op No.2.    

 

 

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Arvind Goel against Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased 4 Tyres 195/60R15 Tubeless 88 V Primary 3ST Michilin Steel Radial from the Op No.2 for a sum of Rs.22,200/- against cash payment vide Bill no.2173, dated 17.08.2016. It is alleged that the OP No.2 assured the complainant that in case of any defect in the tyres after purchase, either the same are replaced with brand new tyres or else the amount is refunded, within the warranty period of three years. After few months from the date of purchase, the complainant noticed cracks on all the four tyres and the complainant approached the Op No.2 and showed the defective tyres in question. The Op No.2 after inspecting the said tyres, asked the complainant to run his vehicle with the said tyres and there is no problem in the tyres, but the complainant was not satisfied with the same. The complainant approached the Op No.1 and after that the tyres purchased by the complainant from OP No.2 were checked by Sh.Abhishek representative of the OP No.1 company at karnal, who after inspecting the tyres agreed that there is manufacturing defect in the said tyres. The said representative assured the complainant that he will intimate the company regarding defective tyres and that the same will be replaced through Ops No.1 and 2. Accordingly, he forwarded the case of the complainant to the OP No.1 Company. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Ops many times but nothing has been done till date.  It is alleged that the said cracks in the four tyres went on increasing and it is clearly visible with naked eyes that the tyres are defective. It is feared that any mishap can take place if the vehicle of the complainant is run with the same tyres, so the complainant is not able to run his vehicle freely. The complainant requested regularly the Ops several times for replacement of said defective tyres or refund the amount paid but the Ops have been postponing the same with one pretext or the other, so that the warranty period is expired. Till date neither the Ops have replaced the defective tyres with the new tyres nor have refunded the amount of the said tyres till date. A legal notice dated 27.07.2018 was served to the ops and the reply dated 02.08.2018 received from Op No.1.   So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the defective tyres with the new one or to refund the cost of tyres and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as cost of litigation charges.  Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the true and material facts, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. It is submitted that the tyres in question were purchased by the complainant on 17.08.2016 and warranty was registered on 25.08.2016 vide warranty ID-DWHR1608250075 and the tyres in question were brought to the Op for inspection only on 18.06.2018 i.e almost after 2 years from the date of purchase and which period by no stretch of imagination can be construed and/or considered to be few months as alleged by the complainant.  It is submitted that it was not after few months, as alleged by the complainant but on 18.06.2018 i.e after almost two years said alleged defects in the tyres were brought to the notice of the answering Op and during the entire period, the said tyres were continuously being used by the complainant. It is submitted that representative of Op No.1 had inspected the tyres purchased by the complainant from the Op No.2. It is also submitted that against the registered by the complainant, subject tyres were duly and thoroughly inspected by the technical expert of the Op No.1 on 18.06.2018 but the same did not reveal any manufacturing defects as alleged by the complainant. But in fact, the inspection carried out by the Expert transpired that the alleged defects sustained in the subject tyres were not due to any manufacturing defects but were due to uses conditions of the tyres as the tyres had suffered weathering/ozone cracking which could be because of several factors including improper inflation pressure maintenance, prolonged parking of the vehicle, exposure to sunlight, exposure to Ozone generating electronic devices and excessive washing/clening of the tyres. After inspection, a detailed technical report dated 02.07.2018 was prepared by the Technical expert of the Op No.1 and the copy of the same was also sent to the complainant vide e-mail. The said factum of preparation of Inspection report and receiving copy of the same has been suppressed by the complainant. It is denied that the representative of Op No.1 had stated and admitted that there was manufacturing defects in the tyres. It is admitted that a legal notice dated 27.07.2018 was sent by the complainant and the same was replied by the Op No.1 with a reply dated 02.08.2018. The remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.  

4.             On notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppal, jurisdiction, suppression of true and material facts. The complainant had purchased four tyres from the Op No.2 vide Bill dated 2173, dated 17.08.2015. The Op No.2 is dealer of selling tyres and he was sold the branded and genuine tyres to the complainant as demanded by him. After that the complainant neither visited the shop of the Op No.2 nor approached about the alleged defect. It is submitted that the complainant had purchased the above said tyres of Michelin after fully satisfaction. The Op No.2 never allured the complainant to purchase the abovesaid tyres. The above said tyres are manufactured by Op No.1, which is a reputed company. The Op No.2 never gave any assurance to the complainant.  On merits, all the contents of the complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops tendered affidavits Ex. RW1/A & Ex.OW1/A and documents Ex.R-1,Ex.R-2 and Ex. OW1/1 to Ex.OW1/3.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

8.             The counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant had purchased four tyres amounting to Rs.22,200/- the bill of tyres is Ex.C-3. Moreover, the sale of the tyres to the complainant by the ops is not disputed and same is admitted. The counsel of the complainant again contended that after few months complainant noticed cracks on all four tyres and he showed the defective tyres to the OP No.2.  Ld. Counsel for complainant contended that the tyres were checked by the representative of Op No.1, the technical report of tyres is Ex.C-5.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the said tyres is covered three years warranty which is in Ex.C-6.  Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 argued that the complainant not show any defect nor even the report of any technical expert not placed on the file. There is no manufacturing defect in the said tyres.  Ld. Counsel for Op No.1 argued that the complainant did not examine any technical expert for proving that fact. He has also relied upon judgment reported as Bridgestone India Private Limited Vs. Rahil Bansal S/o Rakesh Kumar date of decision 09.12.2015 (State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chandigarh), Kiran Motors Limited Vs. Hasmukh Lakshmi Chand date of decision 26.05.2009 (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi), Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra and Ors. Decided on 04.08.2019(State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi).

9.                The counsel of the Op No.2 argued that he is only dealer of the tyres he is not liable for the damaged tyres and placed on record the citations K.S.K.Mohammed versus Mohanan Nair and Another, 2007(3), C.P.J.59;2006(46) R.C.R(Civil) 358 (Kerla State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram), Hindustan Motors limited and another versus N.Siva Kumar and another, 2000(10) SCC654;2001(2) C.P.C 334, Supreme Court of India, has held as under:-

          “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 23,22(b), 14(b) and (d),2(c)(ii)-National Commission order-Impossibility of compliance with-Appellant sold defective care to respondent-Commission ordered replacement or car-Appellant however stopped manufacturing said model-Held, no other commission order for refund of money with interest, compensation and cost to be paid to Op-Further held dealer cannot be held liable for manufacturing defects in vehicle.

10.            On perusal of Ex.C-6 clearly shows that the maximum warranty period of tyre is six years from the date of manufactured. In this case the tyre of complainant was damaged only within two years of purchase that shows there is manufactured defect in the tyres. This is a deficiency of services on the part of opposite parties.  Ex.C-6 is as under:-

        “Passenger Car and Light truck tyres, Michelin Passenger Car and Light Truck tyres manufactured under the authorized TM’s “MICHELIN” and “BF Goodrich”, used in normal service and in accordance with the maintenance recommendations and safety warnings of Michelin, are covered by a warranty against defects in design, workmanship and materials subject to the conditions set out below.

1. Tyres sold within 3 years of the manufacturing date: Where the tyres are sold within 3 years of the manufacturing date, the warranty shall be for the life of the original usable tread pattern or 3 years from the date of purchase, whichever comes first.
2. Tyres sold 3 years after the manufacturing date; Where the tyres are sold 3 years after the manufacturing date, the warranty shall be for the life of the original usable tread pattern or 6 years from the date of manufacture, whichever comes first. At the end of the relevant periods stated in paragraphs a and b above (each referred to as the “Warranty Period”), all warranties, express or implied are terminated. The original usable tread pattern is the original pattern down to the level of the tread pattern wear indicators-1.6mm of tread pattern remaining. Date of purchase is documented by new vehicle registration (where the tyres were fitted on a new vehicle) or original tyre sales invoice. If there is no proof of purchase, the warranty will be based on the date of manufacture.

At the end of the relevant periods stated in paragraphs a and be above (each referred to as the “Warranty Period”), all warranties, express or implied are terminated. The original usable tread pattern is the original pattern down to the level of the tread pattern wear indicators-1.6 mm of tread pattern remaining. Date of purchase is documented by new vehicle registration (where the tyres were fitted on a new vehicle) or original tyre sales invoice. If there is no proof of purchase, the warranty will be based on the date of manufacture. The case law submitted by Op No.1 is correct but not applicable in this case, because every case is different.

12.            In view of the above, we allow the present complaint against the Op No.1 and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the billing amount after deducting the depreciation amount @ 25% of Rs.(22,200*25%)=5,550/-(22,200-5,550)=16,650/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.1 to further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in open Forum:

 

Dt.:26.08.2019                                                    (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.