Haryana

Ambala

CC/9/2020

Dr. Aditya Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Zandu Tyre - Opp.Party(s)

Rupinder Singh

15 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.         :         9 of 2020.

                                                          Date of Institution           :          01.01.2020.

                                                          Date of decision              :         15.03.2021.

                     

Dr. Aditya Sharma son of Dr. V.K. Sharma resident of House No.2258, Sector 9, Ambala City, District Ambala.

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

 

1. M/s Zandu Tyre Club situated at Manav Chowk, Hissar Road, Ambala City through its authorized signatory.
2. M/s Zandu Tyre Services situated at Manav Chowk, Hissar Road, Ambala City through its authorized signatory.

    ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Kaushal Kalyan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

OPs already ex parte vide order dated 27.02.2020.

 

Order:        Smt. NeenaSandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions tothem:-

1. To replace the defective tyres with the new one or to pay the cost of the tyres with interest to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered byhim.
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as litigation charges.
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having Innova car and it required new tyres. In order to purchase the new tyres he contacted the OP No.1, its authorised signatory had shown him the tyres of various companies and assured about the quality and told that all the tyres are having guarantee of 5 years. On his assurance, complainant purchased four tyres of Bridgestone company bearing No.205/65R15, for a sum of Rs.22,000/- including GST and other taxes and paid the amount through online transaction to the OP No.2 on the recommendation of the OP No.1. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- through UPI reference No.828536105274 and Rs.2,000/- through UPI reference No.828536111686 from his account maintained withICICI Bank Ltd. After receiving the payment, OP No.1 issued invoice No.ZTC/2018-19/1540 dated 10.10.2018. After lapse of 6 months, said tyres bulged and got de-shaped. He told about the same to the authorized signatory of OP No.1,who checked all the tyres and told thatout of the four tyres,two tyres were manufactured in the year 2017 and rest of the two tyres were manufactured in the year 2012, resulting into bulging. On knowing this complainant, requested the OPs to replace the defective tyres with the new one. The OPs told him to bring the defective tyres and same will be replaced with the new one. In the month of June 2019, complainant contacted the OPs and requested to give him the new tyres, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant on the assurance of OP No.1, visited the office of OPs again and again, but all in vain. In the first week of October, 2019 OP No.1, flatly refused to replace the defective tyres with new one and threatened him with dire consequences and also misbehaved with the complainant. On 19.10.2019, complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs through registered post, but OPs intentionally avoided the services and same was received back with the report that ‘ receiver is out of country and will return on 21^st November. Servant present at the shop refused to receive the said notice’. By selling defective tyres, having manufacturing defect, the OPs have committed deficiency in services. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs failed to appear and were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.02.2020.

3.                To prove the version of the complainant, ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

4.                We have heard counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.         

5.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased the tyres in question from the OPs vide invoice dated 10.10.2018 (Annexure C-6). The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that after lapse of 6 months of purchase of the said four tyres, two tyres bulged and got de-shaped. On checking the said tyres the OP No.1, told him that the two defective tyres were manufactured in the year 2012, due to which they bulged and assured him that they will replace the said two defective tyres with the new one. However, even after giving assurance the OPs did not replace the two defective tyres with the new one. He further submitted that the said two tyres got defective during the warranty and has produced the warranty schedule. Same is taken on record and marked as ‘A’. On the other hand, none has appeared on behalf of the OPs to contest the case as they were proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and unchallenged and as such we have no other option, except to believe the version of the complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit and other supporting documents. From the warranty policy, it is evident that manufacturer has given a warranty for the period of 5 years from the date of manufacturing or 3 years from the date of purchase or till the exposure of tread wear indicators, whichever is earlier, irrespective of kilometer covered. Since, out of the four tyres, two tyres got defective,within six months from the date of its purchase, therefore it was incumbent upon the OPs to replace the said two defective tyres with new one, by not doing so, they have committed deficiency in service. The OPsare thus not only liable to replace the two defective tyres of the complainant with the new one, but are also liable to compensate him for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to him along with litigation expenses.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

1. To replace the two defective tyres of the complainant with the new one of same brand/specification.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

7.       The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Complainant is also directed to handover the aforesaid two defective tyres to the OPs within 7 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 15.03.2021.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (NeenaSandhu)

              Member                             Member                            President