BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 87 of 2012
Date of Institution : 07.5.2012
Date of Decision : 26.10.2016
Sarjit Singh son of Shri Bhoop Singh, resident of village Jorkian, Tehsil & District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/S Singla Brothers, (Authorized Seller/ Agent of J.K. Tyre & Tube) Hisar Road, Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Partner.
2. J.K. Tyre & Industries Limited, Area/ Regional Office at Rohtak, through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.D. Bishnoi, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief is that complainant had purchased one Big JK tyre (136x28) for his tractor on 12.4.2011 from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.27,000/- vide bill No.1745 dated 12.4.2011 and the op no.1 issued gurantree card bearing no.1367 to him. The complainant got fitted the said tyre in his tractor but after about six months, certain cracks developed in the said tyre and due to those cracks, he was unable to ply his tractor. The matter was reported to op no.1 who assured the complainant that engineer from op no.2 will come to their shop and the matter will be reported to him. Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of op no.1 but always the matter was being postponed in one way or the other and in the month of April, 2012, the Engineer came and he checked the tyre but on 20.4.2012 he has given a wrong report to the complainant. There was manufacturing defect in the said tyre and there was no negligence on the part of complainant at all. The alleged report No.603 is wrong and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and has been given by the authorized person of op no.2 only to save the skin of ops. The complainant requested the ops to replace the tyre with new one or to refund the costs of tyre alongwith interest but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 filed reply and submitted that the complainant has purchased tyre from answering op with warranty of repair from the company. In case any defect in the tyre is found, then it is the responsibility of company to repair or replace the same and answering op cannot be held liable for that in any manner. The answering op sent the complaint to the company and engineer visited and checked the tyre and made report. The complainant has no right to challenge the report of engineer.
3. Op no.2 replied that Engineer of answering op had checked the tyre in question and after the inspection/ checking, it was found and reported by the Enginner that the damage occurred to the tyre due to negligence in driving the vehicle on the part of driver and there was no such manufacturing defect in the tyre in question. Therefore, the answering op company is not liable and responsible for the damages to the tyre in question and complainant himself is liable for the same.
4. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of cash/credit memo Ex.C2, inspection report of tyre Ex.C3, copy of warranty card Ex.C4. Whereas, op no.1 tendered his affidavit Ex.R1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. It has been established on record that complainant had purchased the tyre in question from opposite party no.1 on 12.4.2011 for a sum of Rs.27000/- as is proved from copy of bill Ex.C2. According to the complainant, cracks developed in the tyre just within six months of the purchase of same and he is unable to ply the tractor with the said tyre. The opposite parties got examined the tyre in question from their Engineer who submitted his report and copy of the same has been placed on file by complainant as Ex.C3. In the said report, it is mentioned that probable cause is due to deflation damage, 3 patch repaired. Although, the opposite party no.2 has averred that damage occurred in the tyre due to negligent driving of tractor but has not placed any authentic evidence in this regard. The op no.2 has not even placed on file affidavit of the Engineer who inspected the tyre in question to corroborate its version. Moreover, the inspection report Ex.C3 itself supports the case of the complainant as three patches were repaired before inspection of tyre which means that tyre in question is having manufacturing defect for which the complainant have to get repaired the same for three times and cracks developed at the early stage of 20% of running of tyre. So, the case of the complainant is fully proved and the complainant is entitled to replacement of the tyre besides compensation for harassment.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the tyre in question of the tractor with new one of same price of Rs.27,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment to the complainant including litigation expenses. This order should be complied by the opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 26.10.2016 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
