| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 462 of 14.12.2017 Decided on: 8.9.2021 Raghvir Singh (42 years) s/o Sh.Dara Singh R/o village Chak Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - M/s New Krishna Tyres, Corner Showroom, New Anaj Mandi, Patiala Road, Rajpura Town, District Patiala-140401, through its proprietor/partner.
- Goodyear India Ltd., Near Yadgar Desh Bhagat Hall, BMC Chowk,Jalandhar-144001, through its M.D.
- Goodyear India Ltd., Ist Floor, ABW Elegance, Jasola, New Delhi Tower-110025, through its M.D.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar,Member ARGUED BY Sh.Jaswinder Singh, proxy counsel for Sh.Dilpreet Singh, counsel for the complainant. Sh.Sukant Joshi, counsel for OP No.1 Sh.Gaurav Singla, counsel for OPs No.2&3. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a new tyre/tube make Goodyear for a sum of Rs.35200/- for his combine on 24.9.2015 and five years warranty for any manufacturing defect was given by OP No.1.
- It is averred that on 15.10.2017, when the complainant was harvesting the crops, all of sudden the left tyre of the combine burst and on inspection it was found that wire of tyre had cracked and tyre was found completely damaged. The complainant and requested OP No.1 to replace the tyre with new one but it put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately the complainant alongwith Harvinder Singh again visited the shop of OP for the replacement of the tyre with new one but the OP flatly refused to do so. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony, tension, harassment, inconvenience and humiliation to the complainant. The complainant also got served legal notice dated 20.11.2017 but to no avail. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to replace the tyre/tube with new one or to refund Rs.35200/-, cost of the tyre/tube; to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @18% per annum till realization and Rs.15000/-as costs of litigation.
- Upon notice OPs appeared and filed their written replies separately.
- In the written reply filed by OP No.1it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the tyre on 24.9.2015 .It is mentioned that the warranty used to be given by the company and not by the dealers. After denying all other averments, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In the written reply filed by OPs No.2&3, it is submitted that on 24.9.2015 the complainant purchased a tyre of Goodyear India Ltd. from OP No.1 to be fitted in his tractor. It is further submitted that immediately after receiving a complaint dated November,28 2017 from the complainant regarding the alleged defect in the tyre in question, the OP No.3 duly deputed a technical expert Mr.Ompal Kamboj on 29.11.2017 for conducting an inspection of the said tyre, who after inspection observed that the tyre did not suffer from any manufacturing defect, however, rim digging was found on the bead area of the tyre and the warranty does not cover any damage or irregular wear and tear caused or arisen due to overloading, improper inflation pressure etc. It is pleaded that the liability of OP No.3 is limited only to damage in a tyre on account of manufacturing defect. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CB affidavit of Harvinder Singh alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C9 and has closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.2&3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Om Pal Kamboj, Technical expert, Ex.OPB affidavit of Raj Kumar Gupta, Manager Legal alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP2 and closed the evidence.
- On behalf of OP No.1 Sh. Sushil Kumar, partner of OP No.1 has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPC alongwith documents Exs.OP3 and Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased new tyre/tube make Goodyear for Rs.35200/- for his combine on 24.9.2015 and the tyre was having five year guarantee for any manufacturing defect. The ld. counsel further argued that on 15.10.2017, the complainant was harvesting the crop and all of sudden the tyre of the combine burst and it was that wire of the tyre cracked and the tyre was badly damaged. The complainant immediately approached and requested OP No.2 to replace the tyre but they refused to do so.Hence the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that tyre was purchased on 24.9.2015 and the warranty was given by the company and not by OP No.1.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant never approached OP No.1.So the complaint qua his be dismissed.
- On the other hand the ld. counsel for Goodyear OPs No.2&3 has argued that the complainant was using the tractor for harvesting the crops and left side of the tyre was burst and the wire of the tyre cracked. The tyre was also damaged. The ld. counsel further argued that the tyre was damaged due to fault of the complainant. Investigator was appointed who also gave the report that tyre was damaged due to fault of the complainant. So the company is not liable to replace the same. So the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove this case, complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint. The complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CB of Harvinder Singh.Ex.C1 is the receipt vide which tyre was purchased by the complainant for Rs.35200/- on 24.9.2015 for combine harvester . Ex.C2 is warranty deed, which is following :
Warranty – period 1. Tyres Product Category | Warranty Period(From Manufacturing | Wire Belted Radial (WBR)-Passenger Tyres | 5 years from manufacturing period or till the tyre tread is worn up to “TWI” (i.e. tread wear indicator), whichever is earlier. | Light Truck Tyres (LTT) | 2 years from manufacturing period or till 85% tread wear whichever is earlier | Medium Commercial Truck Tyres (MCT) | 2 years from manufacturingperiod or till 85% tread wear whichever is earlier | Farm Tyres (FFT &RFT) | 5 years from manufacturing period or till 85% tread wear whichever is earlier | Off the Road tyres (OTR) | 5 years from manufacturing period or till 85% tread wear whichever is earlier |
Exs.C5 to C9 are the photographs of the tyre which show that the tyre was damaged due to its wire. - On the other hand Sh.Ompal Kamboj has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA on behalf of OPs No.2&3 and he has deposed as per the written statement.In para No.2, it is stated that OP No.3 received a complaint regarding rimdigging in the tractor tyre and on receipt of the same he was deputed to inspect the tyre and inspect the tyre in question and he made the following observations:
Complaint No. | -
| Date of complaint | November 28,2017 | Date of Inspection | | Customer name | Mr.Dara Singh | Dealer Name | New Krishna Tyres | Vehicle Registration No. | PB 11 AK 8545 | OEM Model | Baljeet Combine | Size and Pattern | 18.4.30 DT 195 12 PR | Kms covered | 9500 hrs | Concern reported by the customer | Rim digging |
The affidavit is accompanied by the photographs and he has stated that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Ex.OPB is affidavit of Raj Kumar Gupta, Manager Legal of OPs No.2&3 and he has deposed as per the written statement and he has stated that the tyre was damaged due to the fault of the complainant so he is not entitled to any relief. Ex.OP1 is inspection report of Goodyear India, in which it is stated that the tyre was damaged due to rim digging, so he is not entitled to the any relief. This report of Goodyear India is not valid in the eyes of law as the same is not signed by the complainant nor the tyre was inspected in the presence of the complainant, which should have been done in the presence of the parties or the witnesses. - It is settled provision of law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that expert tends to give the report in support of the parties who summons them. So this report is not valid in the eyes of law.Ex.OPC is affidavit of OP No.1 and he has deposed as per the written reply.Ex.OP3 is reply to the legal notice,Ex.OP4 is postal receipt
- As per the complainant the tyre was purchased for combine harvester whereas OPs No.2&3 have stated wrong facts that the tyre was purchased for the tractor. The tyre was purchased for Rs.35200/- vide receipt Ex.C1.As per the complainant when he was harvesting the crop on 15.10.2017, the left tyre of the combine burst and he found the wire of the tyre was cracked.
- No doubt, no inspection report was produced by the complainant but the photographs produced by the complainant show that the tyre of combine had cracked. As per the warranty, Ex.C2, the warranty was for five years for manufacturing till the tyre is worn out.
- So it is clear that the tyre was having warranty of five years. The combine harvester usually works in the fields in an un even terrain .So it was the duty of the Goodyear company to provide solid tyres which can withhold the pressure of combine while harvesting the crop and also can withhold the pressure of un even terrain in the fields when the combine is working. So it is clear that the tyre was burst within five years of warranty .
- So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the Goodyear company Ltd. (OPs No.2&3) are directed to refund the amount of Rs.35,200/- to the complainant alongwith interest @4% per annum from the date of purchase of the tyre i.e. 24.9.2015 till payment with no order as to costs.
Compliance of the order be made by the OPs No.2&3 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. ANNOUNCED DATED:8.9.2021 Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
