Haryana

Sonipat

CC/421/2015

Sanjeet S/o Satbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aksh Auto Wheels - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Tyagi

01 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

                Complaint No.421 of 2015

Instituted on: 13.11.2015                                                     

Date of order:  01.07.2016

 

 

Sanjeet son of Satbir Singh, resident of Village Garh Shahjahanpur, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.        Versus

1.M/s Aksh Auto Wheels, Opp. Civil Hospital, Delhi road Sonepat through its Prop.

2.M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd., Plot no.88, Sector 25, Part II, Industrial Area, Panipat through its General Manager.

3.M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd., Regd. Office 6^th Floor, Cherupushpam Buildings, Shanmugham road, Kochi-682001(Kerala) through its Managing Director/Chairman.

 

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

 

Argued by: Shri Pankaj Tyagi, Adv.for complainant.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte.

           Shri Deepak Rawat, Customer Service Engineer for

Respondent no.2 and 3.

 

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           J.L. Gupta-Member.

          

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he has purchased one tyre on 18.7.2015 from respondent no.1 for Rs.4350/- with five years warranty.   But even after the lapse of only one month, some cracks/cuts developed in the said tyre and he has made the complaint with the respondents no.1 and 2 and it was assured that the said tyre will be replaced as soon as possible, but of no use.  The complainant has also moved an application dated 17.9.2015 before the police of PS Sikka Colony, Sonepat, but no action was taken by the police on this application of the complainant.   However, on 20.9.2015 the complainant has received a letter from the respondent no.2 vide which they rejected the claim of the complainant and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

 

2.       The respondents no.2 and 3 have appeared and filed the written statement, whereas respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte.

 

         In the written statement, the respondents no.2 and 3 have submitted that the alleged tyre was inspected by the technical person of the company and no manufacturing defect was found in the tyre.  The cause of failure given in the rejection report was written as NTC Separation which caused due to separation due to cut on treat area.  The tyre being a rubber product may damage any time due to non-manufacturing reasons.  The superior quality of tyre was given to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3.  Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the present complaint qua respondents no.2 and 3.

3.       We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant and Shri Dheeraj Rawat appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2 & 3.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

 

4.       Shri Dheeraj Rawat Customer Service Engineer has submitted on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 that the alleged tyre was inspected by the technical person of the company and no manufacturing defect was found in the tyre.  The cause of failure given in the rejection report was written as NTC Separation which caused due to separation due to cut on treat area.  The tyre being a rubber product may damage any time due to non-manufacturing reasons.  The superior quality of tyre was given to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3.

 

         We have perused the report i.e. Annexure C3/Rejection Letter.  But in the entire report, it is no where mentioned why this defect occurred in the tyre.  As per the representative appeared on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3, the tyre was checked manually and he has also admitted that this defect can be occurred due to bad condition of the road.

 

         Thus, from the above it is proved that the tyre provided to the complainant was defective and was of inferior quality.  The rejection letter is not helpful to the respondents no.2 and 3 and it is sufficient to prove the deficiency in service on their part.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents no.2 and 3 to refund the amount of Rs.4350/- to the complainant and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. It is also directed to the complainant to return the defective tyre to the respondents no.2 and 3, if it is in his possession.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (J.L.Gupta)        (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF      President, DCDRF

                                       Sonepat.

Dated 01.07.2016