DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 272 of 18.12.2015
Decided on: 25.1.2017
Gajjan Singh aged 62 years son of Sh.Munshi Singh resident of Street No.5, Aman Vihar, Bhadson Road, near Grid, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
- Prop. Rajdhani Tyre Sales, Shop No.1-A, Near Gurudwara, Ramgarhia, Lower Mall, Patiala.
- M/s MRF Ltd. Head Office, Sulekha, Ludhiana-141001.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.J.K.Janal,Adv.counsel with complainant
Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.
Sh.Dinesh Sharma,Adv. counsel for Opposite Party No.2
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Gajjan Singh 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 the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay a sum of Rs.1,49,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum, as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by him
- To pay the price of Rs.3650/- of the earlier tyre and tube with interest @ 18% per annum
- To pay any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of Tata ACE four-wheeler bearing registration No.PB-11-AT-7430 and is running the same as goods carrier for the sake of earning his livelihood.On 2.3.2015, he approached OP no.1 for the replacement of one tyre and tube of the above said vehicle. The OP No.1 replaced the same with 165 R-13 tyre alongwith tube with the assurance that the tyre/tube will carry guarantee of one year for any kind of manufacturing defect. He paid Rs.3650/- for the same to OP no.1 vide memo/bill No.6059 dated 2.3.2015. After few days of using the said tube and tyre the same started creating problems. The tyre become swallowed and started bubbling. He approached OP no.1 and requested for the replacement of the same but it postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. On 30.9.2015, OP no.1 received the tyre and tube against receipt no.627 and told him for waiting for few days. On 3.10.2015 he again visited OP no.1 for the receipt of the new tyre and tube but he told him to visit after 3 or 4 days. He again visited OP no.1 on 7.10.2015 and requested to give new tyre and tube as per his assurance but the Ops failed to adhere to their promise. On 21.10.2015, he again visited Op no.1 and requested to do the needful but this time, OP no.1 flatly refused. He also got served a legal notice dated 23.10.2015 upon the OPs but all in vain. Due to the illegal acts and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he is suffering from financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment.
3. On being put to notice the OP No.2 appeared and filed its written version, while OP no.1 despite service failed to come forward, and was accordingly proceeded against exparte. In the written version filed by Op No.2, it has taken preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable since the defective tyre has not been got inspected from the approved laboratory as is required under Section 13(1) of the Act. On merits, it is submitted that the company had neither given any performance guarantee/warranty/ assurance regarding tyre nor authorized any person to give any guarantee/warranty/assurance in this regard. It is denied that the complainant is using the vehicle for earning his livelihood rather the same has been used for commercial purpose. It is further submitted that it is no aware of the circumstances in which the tyre under complaint was brought to it for inspection. It is submitted that soon after the receipt of the tyre, a complaint Docket No.28837 dated 1.10.2015 was raised and the tyre was thoroughly inspected by its technical service Personnel Mr. Rahul Saraswat. The examination of the tyre revealed that the same was damaged due to ‘SHOULDER CARCASS BREAK’ caused due to improper inflation, which is not due to any manufacturing defect of the tyre. However, without prejudice and as a goodwill gesture, it had offered replacement of tyre to the complainant on payment of 1705/-+ tax to be paid by the complainant i.e. 74% of the price of a new tyre. It is further stated that the tyre being a rubber product can be damaged for any reason other than manufacturing defect. The life/performance of a tyre depends on many factors like air pressure, driving habits, road conditions, load carried by the vehicle, mechanical condition and/or irregularities of the vehicle, proper maintenance of the tyres, speed, nature of the terrain i.e. level ground, hilly and/or winding roads, the season of the year when the tyre was used, position of the tyre on the vehicle, inflation/pressure and the external object with which the tyre may come in contact while in motion etc. Its liability as a manufacturer arises only if the tyre/tube/flap is having manufacturing defect. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on its part as alleged in the complaint. The OP denied all other averments made in the complaint, and has prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA sworn affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence. The ld. counsel for OP no.2 tendered in evidenced Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Sh.Sumit Kukreja, Area Manager of the OP, Ex.OPB, sworn affidavit of Sh.Shivam Tiwari alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The grievance of the complainant is that the tyre and tube which he purchased from OP no.1 vide bill dated 2.3.2015, Ex.C1, for a sum of Rs.3650/- having warranty of one year, were damaged after few days of its purchase. Since the said tyre and tube were damaged within the warranty period, therefore, he requested OP No.1 for the replacement of the said said tyre/tube. However, the O.Ps. refused to replace the same.
7. The counsel for OP No.2 vehemently argued that OP No.2 neither itself nor authorized any person to give any guarantee/warranty regarding the performance of the tyre because the performance of the tyre depends upon many factors, which have already been mentioned in para No. 12 of the written version. On receipt of the impugned tyre on 1.10.2015, it was duly inspected by its technical service personnel. From the inspection report dated 1.10.2015,Ex.OP3, it is clear that damage was due to” shoulder carcass break due to improper inflation and not due to any manufacturing defect. However, as a goodwill gesture, OP no.2 offered the complainant to get replace the impugned tyre on payment of Rs.1705/- + tax by him.
8. From the report dated 1.10.2015, Ex.OP3, it is apparent that there is no inherent manufacturing defect in the tyre. However, in rebuttal to the said report, the complainant has not placed on record the report of any expert to show that the tyre / tube in question suffers from any manufacturing defect. Thus, in the absence any documentary evidence, we do not hesitate to conclude that complainant has miserably failed to prove that the tyre/tube in question were having any inherent manufacturing defect.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the case, and the same is dismissed accordingly. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:25.1.2017
(NEENA SANDHU)
PRESIDENT
(NEELAM GUPTA)
MEMBER
