BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 155 of 2013
Date of Institution : 2.9.2013
Date of Decision : 8.8.2016
K.K.Jindal, r/o 14/205, Ram Colony, Sirsa District Sirsa (Haryana).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Taneja Tyres and Services, 174, Hisar Road, Sirsa through its Manager.
2. MRF Limited, SCO 32, Pocket A Sector-14, near Civil Hospital, Hisar through its
Manager.
...…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.JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
On 6.4.2013, complainant purchased two MRF tyres bearing nos. 1657014 and 165/78/14 from opposite party no.1 for Rs.5600/- for his Indica car no. HR-24/8443 and got the same fitted therein. On 11.4.2013, both the said tyres became defective. The complainant visited Op no.1, who kept the said tyres with him and asked the complainant to come after one week. On 19.4.2013 when the complainant again visited op no.1 and asked for replacement of said defective tyres, it was told by op no.1 that claim of said tyres has been rejected from Hisar office i.e. op no.2 and the complainant was again told to come on 29.4.2013 for inspection of tyres by Engineer of company from Karnal. On 29.4.2013, the complainant was assured that his claim will be passed and he was told to collect the new tyres from op no.1 on 15.5.2013. But after that, the complainant visited Op no.1 several times, but all time he was put off on one pretext or the other. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, both the opposite parties have filed their separate replies and have contested the case of the complainant. OP no.1 has pleaded that on receipt of complaint, the defected tyres were immediately sent to the company for examination, who reported that the tyres were not damaged due to any manufacturing defect. Op no.2 in its reply submitted that on inspection by its Technical Service Personnel Mr.Haribansh Chauhan, it was reported that said tyre bearing serial No. 62816135310 was damaged due to “through cut caused on the tread area (Pattern area) by a sharp object while the vehicle was in motion. With regard to another tyre bearing sr.no.60774950613, it was reported that the said tyre was damaged due to External damage/Scoring caused due to sudden impact with sharp object. Thus, there was not any manufacturing defect in the tyres and the complainant is not entitled to any claim.
3. By way of evidence, the complainant has placed on record his own supporting affidavit Ex.C1, copies of Claim Forwarding Dockets Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C7 and reply to notice Ex.C8. On the other hand, opposite parties tendered in evidence Ex.R1-affidavit of Sh.Shivam Tiwari, Sales and Technical Engineer of Op no.2 and Ex.R2-copy of Inspection report.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
5. Undisputedly, said two tyres were purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1on 6.4.2013 and after use of only 5 days, these tyres became defective.. The said two tyres were sent to the company, and vide reports of the company Technical Service Person placed on record as Ex.R2 and Ex.R3, no manufacturing defect was found in said tyres, so, its replacement was refused.
6. In his report Ex.R2, said company Technical Service Person with regard to Tyre 165/70R14 81S ZVTV TL (Sl.No. 60774950613) has mentioned that the same was damaged as a result of External damage/scoring due to sudden impact with sharp object and in his second report Ex.R3 with regard to tyre 165/70R14 81S ZVTV TL (Sl.No. 62816135310) he has mentioned that the same was damaged as a result of the tyre is repaired/retreated tyre and in its reply the opposite party no.2 in para no.7 has mentioned that the examination of its Technical Service Personnel Mr.Haribansh Chauhan revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to cut caused on the tread area (pattern area) by a sharp object while the vehicle was in motion. In these circumstances, it is not believable that both the said tyres were damaged due to any sharp object. Moreover, the opposite party no.2-company has not examined the said Company Technical person namely Sh.Harbansh Chauhan to prove the said reports. Thus, the said reports are not reliable when the same has not been duly proved by the said person. Furthermore, it is also note worthy that the tyres were purchased on 6.4.2013 and these were bursted within 5 days of its purchase. Both the New tyres are not supposed to have any damage due to sudden impact with sharp object. Therefore, selling the defective tyres was certainly deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties, to refund the price of the tyres in question i.e. Rs.5600/- within a period of one month from the date of filing of present complaint dt. 2.9.2013 till its payment, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from today till its realization. The complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.2000/-, for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-. Both the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to comply the order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:8.8.2016 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
