Adv.for the complainant - D. Bagarty
Adv.for the O.P - Sri A.K.Mishra,S.C.Pradhan
Date of filing of the case – 02.08.2016
Date of order - 24.04.2017
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1. The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a Bolero Plus vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-03-D-2411 from the OP No.1 on dt.18.03.2015. By the time of 2nd service of the said vehicle, the complainant found defect in the tyre of the vehicle to which the complainant reported the same before the OP No.1 and handed over the tyre to OP No.1 on dt.22.06.2015. The complainant alleges that, instead of replacing the tyre the OP No.1 demanded Rs.5840/- and after payment the said amount by the complainant the OP No.1 handed over the tyre of a pickup van. Then complainant further alleges that, the act of the OP No.1 is deliberate and knowingly the Op No.1 harassed the complainant and hence the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
2. Both OPs have contested the case by filing their written version separately. According to OP No.1 , the tyre of the complainant’s vehicle covers under the warranty policy of the tyre manufacturer and accordingly on the complaint of the complainant the OP No.1 send the defective tyre to the manufacturer J.K.Tyre for necessary action. But the manufacturer did not found any manufacturing defect and returned the same without replacement. Hence the OP No.1 claims no deficiency in service on his part.
3. The Op No.2 interalia averred that, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.2 and hence the OP2 is not liable for any defect in the tyre of the complainant’s vehicle. Further the OP No.2 submitted that, the dealings between him and OP No.1 is on principal to principal basis and hence Op No.1 is not an agent of Op No.2. The OP No.2 denied the complainant’s allegations and claims no deficiency in service on his part.
4. Heard both the parties. Perused the material available on record. The learned advocate for the complainant fairly submitted that, the tyre of the vehicle did not cover the warranty of the Bolero plus vehicle. However since there is defect in the tyre within a very short period of its use, the OP No.1 is under obligation to replace the same. On the other hand the learned advocate for the OP.No.1 submitted that, on the complaint of the complainant the Op1 acted promptly and sent the tyre to J.K Tyre and hence OP No.1 provided service to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the warranty coverage. The learned advocate of the OP.No.2 submitted that, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Op2 and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op2 relating to the defect in the tyre of the complainant’s vehicle.
5. Admittedly by there was defect in the tyre of the Complainant’s vehicle within a very short period of its use. It is also an admitted fact that, the tyre is not covered within the warranty coverage of the Bolero Plus vehicle. But it is the duty of the OP No.1 to inform the quality of the goods which are not covered with the warranty of the vehicle. However the defects in the tyre depends on several reasons like pressure, weight etc., which requires an expert opinion. The complainant has not produce any expert opinion nor has produce any affidavit evidence of any technical person. It is also seen from the rejection letter dt.25.06.2015 of J.K.Tyre that, the service engineer of the tyre company did not found any manufacturing defect and found neglected trade cut. The complainant has not disputed this report nor has produce any rebuttal evidence to this report. Hence in the absence of any believable evidence it cannot be said that, there is any manufacturing defect in the tyre of the complainant’s vehicle, for which the same is liable to be replaced. It is also seen from the material available on record that, after receipt of the complaint the Op No1 acted promptly and sent the tyre to the manufacturer as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and hence it cannot be said that the OP No.1 is deficient in service.
6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances there is no merit in the Case of the complainant, and hence the same is dismissed without cost.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL’2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit) MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
19.06.2017 Order kept in seal and cover due to the cease work of the Bar association after the cease work is over. Hence order pronounced today i.e on 19.06.2017. Issue free copy to the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit) MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT
