Tripura

West Tripura

CC/36/2016

Sri Jagadish Debnath. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Sampatlal Baid & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.G.S.Bhattacharjee, Mr.M.Debnath, A.Chakraborty.

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC-  36 of 2016 

Sri Jagadish Debnath,
S/O. Sri Khagendra Chandra Debnath,
Vill.-North Champamura,
P.O.-Puratan Agartala,
Agartala, Dist.-Tripura West.        ..…..…...Complainant.

             VERSUS

M/s. Sampatmal Baid,
    Sakuntala Road, Agartala,            
West Tripura, Pin-799001.

2.    M/s. JK Tyre and Industries Ltd.
Local Office:
C/O. Nanda Tyres of 89 Motor Stand,
Agartala, Pin-799001.

JK Tyre and Industries Ltd.(Head Office),
Link House 3, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002.            ..............Opposite party.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Sri Gouri Shankar Bhattacharjee,
                          Sri Monoj Debnath,
                          Smt. Anindita Chakraborty 
                          Advocates.
For the O.P. No.1 to 3         : Sri Pradyot Kr. Dhar,
                      Sri Ranagopal Chakraborty,
                      Smt. Swastika Das,
                      Advocates.      

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  14.12.2016

J U D G M E N T
          This case arises on the petition filed by Jagadish Debnath against M/S Sampatmal Baid and 2 others. Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased one JCB tyre from M/S Sampatmal Baid on payment of Rs.30,000/-. On 05.03.16 i.e., on the next date of purchase he took the initiative to fit the said tyre in the rim of the wheel. But when the tube was entered it was found that the tyre was defective and was splited.  At once it was shown to M/s. Sampatmal Baid, O.P. No.1 and M/s. Sampatmal Baid, O.P. No.1 confirming that in case of manufacturing defect within warranty period it would be replaced. Complainant then met the authorized dealer and requested him to take necessary step for replacement. Claim Forwarding Docket was sent to the manufacturer, J.K. Tyre and Industries Ltd. but ultimately the tyre was not replaced. So, petitioner filed this case for deficiency of service of O.Ps. Claimed the replacement of the tyre and compensation. 

2.         O.P. M/S Sampatmal Baid filed W.S. denying  the claim. It is stated that the complainant after purchase caused damage to the tyre. The damaged tyre was examined by the expert  engineer and it was found that the damage was not due to manufacturing defect but due to fitment/ mounting/ demounting damage. Due to improper mounting/ handling tyre was damaged. O.P. therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised by the petitioner and O.P. following points cropped up for determination:
        (I) Whether the Tyre was defective one or damaged by the complainant?
        (II) Whether petitioner is entitled to get replacement of the tyre and compensation?
        
4.        Petitioner produced the standard warranty policy, original internet extract of 'Fitment Damage', claim receipt, rejection report, copy of invoice, copy of power of attorney marked as Exhibit 1 Series. 
        Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of complainant, Jagadidh Debnath. 

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of Soumen Mondal, Lawful Attorney of the company, J.K.  Tyres. He  also produced the expert opinion on examination of the tyre. The statement on affidavit of O.P. No.1, Kishan Lal Baid also given by O.P.  

6.        On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points. 

Findings and decision:
7.        We have gone through the warranty card issued by the company. In the warranty card what is covered is written & what not covered is written. It is written that when the tyre is damaged from improper mounting, handling then no replacement was available. Arbitration Clause is also written. Remedial  actions is written  i.e., to ensure the correct tyre mounting/ use proper tools. Rejection letter issued by the company is produced. In the rejection letter it is written that the damaged tyre was examined by the service engineer and it was found that the damage was not found due to manufacturing defect. The product failed due to fitment damage. In this case the purchase of tyre on payment of Rs.30,000/- is admitted and established fact. The vouchers also affirmed it. It is also admitted that on the next date of purchase the tyre was damaged. The contention of the petitioner is that at the time of fitting such damage was caused. This is also report of the service engineer. Petitioner in his evidence stated that after purchase he took the initiative along with Atul Lal Singha to fit the said tyre in the ring of the wheel. Atul Lal Singha in his evidence stated that he had taken initiative for fitting the tyre in the JCB machine. He put the tube inside the tyre and started inflation. When the tube was inflated the tyre splited. If we follow his evidence it is clear that the tyre fitted and damaged at the time of inflation and not at the time of fitting as stated by the service engineer. Service engineer did not appear before the court to explain that damage was caused due to fitment. 

8.        It is clear from the evidence on record that dealer of the J.K. Tyre did not give any guideline in respect of fitting of the tyre in the rim. If the tyre is vulnerable and subject to damage at the time of fitment then proper guideline should be given to the customer for fitting it properly. Proper  service  centre also is to be shown. For the purpose of promoting the sale use of supply of goods fare method is to adopted. Misleading representation should not be made. The dealer and the company did not give any such caution that at the time of fitment the tyre may be splited or may be damaged. This is unfair trade practice. We therefore, consider that the dealer of the company did not give proper information to the petitioner. He did not take care in respect of fitting of the tyre in the JCB machine. The tyre was costly one and it was damaged on the next day of purchase. The mechanic who fitted it stated that at the time of inflation of tube the tyre was splited not at the time of fitment. Company engineer failed to establish that the tyre splited at the time of fitting only. He did not appear to justify his findings.

9.        We therefore, came to the considered opinion that there was imperfection of service by the dealer and the company. The quality nature and manner of the tyre was not projected properly. The tyre was not damaged at the time of fitting as alleged. 
        
10.        Therefore, petitioner is entitled to get the replacement of the tyre and also compensation to the extent of Rs.5000/- both the points are decided accordingly.
        
11.        In view of our above findings over the two points we direct O.P. to replace the tyre and also pay compensation Rs.5000/- to the petitioner. Order is to complied within 2 months if not complied the O.P. is to pay Rs.35,000/- and interest on that @ 9% P.A.    
 
                      Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.