Haryana

Karnal

CC/580/2022

Amish Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s GoodYear India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Lokesh Sharma

26 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 580 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.12.10.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:26.06.2024

 

Amish goel son of Shri Narinder Kumar, resident of H.No.1879, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     M/s Goodyear India Limited through its Directors/authorized person at Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad-121004, Haryana.

2.     Sandeep Mahajan Managing Director/authorized person of M/s Goodyear India Limited person at Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad-121004, Haryana.

3.     M/s Hyundai Motor India Limited through its Directors/authorized person at 2^nd Floor, Corporate one (Baani Building) plot No.5,  Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi, Delhi 110025.

4.     Mr.Unsoo Kim Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Hyundai Motor India Limited at 2^nd Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building) Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi, Delhi 110025.

5.     M/s Rahul Karnal Hyundai through its Directors/partners/ proprietor/authorized person at G.T. Road, NH-1, Near Devilal Chowk, Sector-14, Karnal, Haryana, 132001.

                                                                      …..Opposite party

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh.Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh………Member

          

 Argued by:     Complainant in person.

                        Shri Sandeep Rana, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

                        OP no.3 ex-parte VOD 13.12.2022

                        OP No.4 given up.

                        Shri Rahul Bali, counsel for OP No.5. 

 

                    (Dr.Suman Singh, Member)

 

ORDER:

 

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant went to the showroom of OP No.5 who is one of the dealer of OP No.3 and purchased Hyundai Creta. The OP No.1 is the company which provides the tyre to OP No.3 for installments in the car. The said car of complainant also came with the exterior product of tyre which was of company M/s Goodyear India Limited i.e. OP No.1. On 13.09.2021, the complainant was driving the said car and while driving, the tyre of the said car got burst and car was got misbalance. The complainant came out from the car and see if there was an external object/road hazardous substance which can cause damage to the said tyre. The complainant also inspected the said area and he found no such substance that can cause damage to the tyre meaning thereby the tyre got damage due to manufacturing condition. The said tyre was under the Standard manufacturer’s warranty of 5 years and the incident took place within the warranty period. On the same day, father of complainant purchased another tyre of Rs.5500/- dated 13.09.2021 vide bill No.6549. After the said incident, the complainant went to the shop of OP No.5 and the tyre got inspected and lodged a complaint with the OP No.5 and the tyre was kept by OP No.5, but the said claim was got rejected by the company on false and frivolous grounds. In this way, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs No.1, 2 and 5 appeared. OPs No.1 & 2 filed their joint written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, etc. On merits, it is submitted that a tyre is a rubber product and it is well settled principle that life of a tyre depends not only upon the skills of the driver of the vehicle but, also on external factors or road hazards. Not exercising due diligence and card during the usage of a tyre will not provide the tyre its expected life. In fact, it is responsibility of the consumer to ensure that the vehicle and tyres are maintained and utilized properly for proper working of the tyre fitted therein. The complainant had registered a complaint on 30.09.2021, bearing complaint No.E3009210345 with OP No.1 regarding “cut” in one of his car’s tyres, pursuant thereto, OP No.1 deputed a technical expert Mr.Rampal to inspect the tyre in question on the same day and upon inspection, the Technical Expert, in his claim inspection report observed that tyre in question was free from any manufacturing related conditions. Further, tyre in question suffered damage on sidewall area. Such condition generally occurs as a result of bruise by an external object. Hence, the same is not covered under the warranty policy of OP No.1. Thus, the claim of complainant was rejected as non-warrantable by certified Technical Expert of OP No.1 in accordance with Warranty policy.  Despite alleging manufacturing condition/defect in the tyre in question, the complainant has not filed any material evidence to establish that the tyre in question indeed suffered from an inherent manufacturing related condition/deficiency. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.5 filed its written version and raised preliminary objections regarding abuse of process of law, cause of action, estoppels, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant approached OP No.5 for tyre inspection while raising complaint No.E3009210345 upon which OP No.5 obtained the claim inspection report from manufacturer of tyre of complainant, in which manufacturer clearly mentioned in observation that “Tyre Spare: on observation, tyre found damaged on sidewall area due to bruise/penetration by an external objection/road hazard. Tyre does not suffer from any manufacturing condition and hence, no covered under warranty policy. The company does give warranty for tyres and tubes. As per clause (3) of Hyundai New Vehicle Warranty, it is clearly mentioned that “Audio Video Navigation System, Wireless Charger, Air Purifier, Batter,es Tyres and Tubes, Audio Systems, or any external accessory originally equipped on Hyundai vehicle are warranted directly by the respective manufacturers and not by HMIL” meaning thereby the respective manufacturers of the respective parts fitted in the vehicle of Hyundai,  will be solely responsible for their products according to which “If” there is any defect in the tyre or tube of vehicle of complainant then only its manufacturer will be responsible, the OP No.5 has no liability in it. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Despite service of notice none has appeared on behalf of OP No.3 and it has opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 13.12.2022 of the Commission.

5.             The OP No.4 was given up by the complainant being unnecessary.

6.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

7.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dated 13.09.2021 Ex.C1, legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C7, copies of photographs of tyre Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 27.03.2023.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Komal Kalra as Ex.OP1/A, copy of special power of attorney Ex.OP1, copy of safety tips Ex.OP2, claim information report Ex.OP3, copy of warranty policy Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 03.08.2023.

9.             Learned counsel for OP No.5 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Romi, authorized signatory of M/s Rahul Karnal Hyundai Ex.OP5/A, copy of authority letter Ex.OP5/1, copy of Hyundai New Vehicle Warranty Ex.OP5/2, copy of claim inspection report Ex.OP5/3 and closed the evidence on 22.09.2023.

10.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

11.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 13.09.2021, the complainant was driving the his car while driving, the tyre of the said car got burst and car was got misbalance. The complainant also inspected the said area and he found no such substance that can cause damage to the tyre meaning thereby the tyre got damage due to manufacturing defect. The said tyre was under the Standard manufacturer’s warranty of 5 years and the incident took place within the warranty period. On the same day, father of complainant purchased another tyre of Rs.5500/- dated 13.09.2021 vide bill No.6549. After the said incident, the complainant went to the shop of OP No.5 and the tyre got inspected and lodged a complaint with the OP No.5 and the tyre was kept by OP No.5, but the said claim was got rejected by the company on false and frivolous grounds and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

12.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that  tyre is a rubber product and it is well settled principle that life of a tyre depends not only upon the skills of the driver of the vehicle but, also on external factors or road hazards. Not exercising due diligence and card during the usage of a tyre will not provide the tyre its expected life. In fact, it is responsibility of the consumer to ensure that the vehicle and tyres are maintained and utilized properly for proper working of the tyre fitted therein. OP No.1 deputed a technical expert Mr.Rampal to inspect the tyre in question on the same day and upon inspection, the Technical Expert, in his claim inspection report observed that tyre in question was free from any manufacturing related conditions. Such condition generally occurs as a result of bruise by an external object. Hence, the same is not covered under the warranty policy of OP No.1. Thus, the claim of complainant was rejected as non-warrantable by certified Technical Expert of OP No.1 in accordance with Warranty policy and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

13.           Learned counsel for OP No.5, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant approached OP No.5 for tyre inspection upon which OP No.5 obtained the claim inspection report from manufacturer of tyre, in which manufacturer clearly mentioned in observation that tyre does not suffer from any manufacturing condition and hence, no covered under warranty policy and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14.           Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the car from the OP No.5. It is also admitted that the tyre of the car of complainant has been burst during the warranty period. 

15.           The complainant has alleged that the tyre in question has been burst due to manufacturing defect. The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant. To prove his case, the complainant has placed on file copies of photographs of the tyre of the car Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 and on perusal of the same from there seems no cut on the outer side of the tyre despite that the tyre has been burst. Meaning thereby the tyre has been burst due to manufacturing defect during the warranty period. The OPs No.1 & 2 being the manufacruer of the tyre neither replaced the tyre nor refunded the costs of the tyre despite knowing the fact that the tyre was burst due to manufacturing defect under the warranty period, thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2. 

16.           The complainant in his complaint has alleged that after bursting of the tyre, he has purchased new tyre of Godyear company amounting to Rs.5500/- and now he does not need the new tyre rather he wants refund of Rs.5500/-. To prove this fact he has placed on file copy of bill Ex.C1.  

17.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred only) to the complainant. We further direct the OPs No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Complaint qua OPs No.3 to 5 stands dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated: 26.06.2024

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Suman Singh)

                           Member                                  Member