Haryana

Ambala

CC/171/2014

RAJINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S WALIA TYRE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

24 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

               Complaint Case No.: 171 of 2014

   Date of Institution    : 11.07.2014

   Date of Decision  :    24.07.2015

Rajinder Singh son of Sh. Ram Chander, Resident of H. No.813, Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

                                                             ……….Complainant

                                                                                                         Versus

M/s Walia Tyre Co., 123-A, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                                                                                            ……Opposite Party.

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. ANIL SHARMA, MEMBER.

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Keshav Sharma, Adv. for OP.

ORDER

                   Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that  he purchased two J.K. tyres having size 185-85R16 and Product No.1214 vide  receipt No.536 dated 28.03.2014 for Rs.9600/- from Op.  On 10.04.2014, one of the abovesaid tyre swollen & became unuseable, so, the complainant approached the OP for replacement who kept the tyre with him and assured that the same will be replaced.  After some days, the complainant approached the OP for new tyre but he refused to replace the tyre and asked  him to lift the defective tyre.  Hence, the present complaint has been filed seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of the complaint & non-joinder of necessary party.  On merits, sale of the tyres by OP has been admitted but it has been submitted that  the tyre in question was checked and rejected by the manufacturer company and a letter was also written to them vide letter dated 28.05.2014 hence, there is no question of assurance for its replacement as the manufacturing Company is liable.  In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost has been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-3 and closed the same whereas,  on the other hand, the counsel of OP tendered affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh as Annexure RX  and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard the complainant  and learned counsel for the OP at length  and gone  through the case file very carefully.  The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased two tyres of J.K. Company from the OP on 28.03.2014 and after 13 days, one of the tyre became swollen/ defective.  As such, a complaint was made to the OP who  kept the tyre and demanded Rs.1500/- for replacement but the complainant refused to pay the amount on the ground that the tyre are within warranty period and no question for giving any money arise. Thereafter, a written complaint of OP was made by complainant to the manufacturing company of the tyre but no action taken by the company in this regard. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice  on the part of OP.

                   On the other hand, the counsel for the OP argued that  the complaint may be dismissed on the  ground that  the complainant has failed to implead manufacturer J.K. Tyre company as a party.  The counsel for the Op vehemently argued that there is no deficiency on the part of OP because  the tyre of the complainant was sent to the company  for inspection and the company after checking the tyre, rejected the same being not fit for replacement.

5.                After hearing the parties and going through the facts of the case, it is admitted case of the parties that the tyres in question were sold by the OP to the complainant with a guarantee of replacement as clearly mention on the Bill dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure C-1) as under:-

          * Subject to Ambala City jurisdiction only.

          * Preserve this Cash Memo/Bill for validity of guarantee.

          * Goods once sold cannot be taken back.

          * In case of any kind of manufacturing defect in the goods will be sent to

   the concerned company for replacement.

                   From the above conditions, it clearly emerges that in case of manufacturing defect in the tyre so sold, it will be got replaced from manufacturing company. Further, it is also not in dispute that one tyre became defective within the duration of one month and was submitted by the Op to the manufacturing company with warranty claim form duly filled in & signed by him in the capacity of dealer as clear from the contents of Annexure C-2.  But the version of OP that manufacturing Co. rejected the claim of tyre is not believable since the OP has failed to file any document /rejection letter of the company on the file wherefrom it is proved that the manufacturing company rejected the claim of tyre. Moreover, the Op has not tendered any affidavit/inspection report of the Engineer of manufacturing company regarding rejection of claim of the tyre of the complainant whereas on the other hand, the version of the complainant as narrated in document Annexure C-3 is trustworthy that the Op demanded Rs.1500/- for replacement of the tyre which he refused to pay on the ground that the tyres are having guarantee and no question for giving any money arise and a written complaint of OP (Annexure C-3) in this regard was made by complainant to the manufacturing company of the tyre on 28.05.2014 but no action taken by the company in this regard. 

                   In view of the above discussed facts, we are of the confirmed view that the complainant is an aggrieved person by the act & conduct of the OP dealer who played unfair trade practice with the complainant  by not replacing the defective tyre despite the tyre was having guarantee.  Further, in our view, it is the foremost duty of a dealer of a company to provide proper service to their  customers by getting the tyres replaced from the company in case of manufacturing  defect of swollen of tyre etc. but in the present case the OP has failed to do so. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the communication of this order:-

1. To return the cost of one tyre amounting to Rs.4800/- alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its purchase i.e. 28.03.2014 to till its realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses etc.

                        Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts  shall attract further simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced:24.07.2015     

                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                                     (A.K. SARDANA)

                                                            PRESIDENT 

                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                       (ANIL SHARMA)

                                                                                                               MEMBER