Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/63/2017

Alok Kumar Tripathy S/O- Fakir Mohan Tripathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Propritor ,GOOD YEAR INDIA LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Abdul Zalil

17 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 63 OF 2017

 

Alok Kumar Tripathy ( 49 Yrs.),

S/O: Fakir Mohan Tripathy,

Partner of Shree Viswakarma Construction,

R/O: Bazarpada, Belpahar,

PS/PS- Belpahar, Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha…………………...………Complainant.  

                                           

Versus

 

1. Proprietor,

Good Year India Ltd., Mathura Road, Ballavgarh,

Faridabad (Haryana)- 121004.

 

2. Arun Trade Combines,NH-43, Dhantari Road,

Devpuri, Raipur (CG)- 492015  ……………................….…...Opp. Parties.

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                   Abdul Zalil, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.1                              A.K. Mishra, Adv & Associates.                             

For the Opp. Party No. 2                               (Ex-Parte).

 

Date of Order: 17.07.2018

 

Present

                                                                             1. Shri Sundar Lal Behera, President.

                                                                             2. Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha, Member.

                                                                           3. Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member (W).

                                               

Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha, Member : - In nutshell, the case of complainant is that being a contractor he has purchased one Tractor-cum-Graddor of Mahindra having model 605 DII Arjun Novo from the O.P.No.2 for his use which was financed by SBI Samada Branch.  The O.P.No.2 issued a delivery challan on dtd. 24.11.2016. The complainant has paid Rs.2,00,000/- only on dtd.21.11.2016 and Rs.10,00,000/- only on dtd. 22.12.2016 to the O.P .No.2.  The tyres are fitted of Good Year brand of which the O.P.No.1 is the proprietor. The said tyre are covered under warranty by the O.P.No.1. The said tractor was carrying out the work of complainant and suddenly the rear left side tyre was blast on dtd.29.04.2017, the complainant immediately lodged a complaint at the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 sent a person namely B.Pati for inspection of the event who made a report on the ground of violating warranty conditions the warranty of the said tyre will not cover. The complainant purchased an another tyre on dtd.31.05.2017 by paying Rs.31,000/- only from a local tyre agency for smooth running of his work.  As the O.Ps. fails to provide a new tyre even the said tyre was under warranty period and sustaining heavy financial loss the complainant filed this case for proper adjudication.     

The O.P.No.2 failed to either appear or filing of written version after being noticed to both the O.Ps. and even after providing sufficient opportunities stand ex-parte ultimately. The O.P.No.1 appeared and filed written version through his advocate wherein he submitted that the complainant has violated the warranty conditions as such the warranty of the tyre will not be covered. The damage of the tyre caused due to external factors such as road hazards, including cuts, bruise, impact break, over loading and improper inflation pressure which are excluded from the warrantable condition.  The O.P.No.1 also challenged on territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. On the above grounds the O.P prayed for dismissal of case.  

Heard from the complainant and O.P.No.1, gone thoroughly on the case record and materials available. The O.P.No.2 kept silent which indicates he has nothing to say in this case. The O.P.No.1 argued on the point of territorial jurisdiction and warranty conditions. 

The complainant is a contractor by profession and the managing partner of one ‘Shree Viswakarma Construction’. He purchased a Tractor and Graddor for use to earn for his livelihood. Though the tractor was purchased from the O.P.No.2 situated at Raipur (C.G) and the tyres(Good Year brand) installed in the said tractor are dealt by O.P.No.1 (proprietor of Good Year Tyres)  located at Faridabad, Hariyana, the complainant after being purchased was / is using the said tractor within in the district of Jharsuguda so also the tractor was financed by SBI Samada Branch, Belpahar situated within the local jurisdiction (Statement of Account attached). As the cause of actions arose within the local jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum, the case is maintainable as per the provision U/S 11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

So far as warranty conditions are concerned it is not disputed on the warranty period rather terms and conditions mentioned in clause “B” is hereby narrated as under,

B. Warranty-Exclusions and Limitations:

1. The warranty does not cover tyre damage or irregular wear & tear caused or arising from any of the following reason:

i.          road hazards including punctures, cuts, snags, bruise, impact breaks etc;

ii.         Improper use or operation, including without limitation, Improper use such as racing, testing, overloading, improper inflation pressure, fitment not according to the specification of vehicle or wheel manufacturer, negligence, and alterations to the tyre; 

The O.P.No.1 appointed one technical expert namely Badri Narayan Pati for inspection who inspected the said tyre and tube in question which was in a demounted condition and observed that,

 “Tyre and tube checked and found through damage on tread area due to impact/bruise by an external object/road hazards.  Tyre and tube does not suffer from any kind of manufacturing defect, hence not covered under warranty replacement”.

The said expert cited some still photographs of the damaged tyre in question in his affidavit annexed with the written version which is not showing whether the said tyre was dismounted from the vehicle or not. 

If we look into the Exclusions and Limitations which are mentioned in warranty which does not cover such as road hazards including punctures, cuts, snags, bruise, impact breaks etc and also improper use or operation, including without limitation: Improper use such as racing, testing, overloading, improper inflation pressure, fitment not according to the specification of vehicle or wheel manufacturer, negligence, and alteration to the tyre and many more. Out of those conditions the said expert observed the damaged caused due to external sharp object mentioned with the photographs filed in his affidavit.

Tractor is not a mere vehicle rather it may be treated as a machine fitted on wheels which used for various agriculture purposes, industrial purposes, loading and unloading purposes and many more etc., which are having tyres and tubes of some extra ordinary qualities, sizes and strength in comparison to the tyres and tubes of other vehicles. Tractor runs both on normal roads, raw roads including in the fields full of mud etc. There are maximum chances to be in contact with external objects while plying on the road or in the field areas and for which purpose specially, such types of tyres are made. “Warranty” is such a term which easily attracts to any consumer in purchasing any product or article which rarely explained thoroughly at the time of purchasing. Exclusion of being contact with the external objects from the warranty conditions of such category of tyres and tubes are seems to be unfair in the eye of law prepared by the manufacturers.   

The consumer/the complainant is entitled to get benefits if any such damage occurs within the period of warranty. On the above facts and circumstances the O.P.No.1 is found to be deficient in service towards the complainant, hence the complaint petition is allowed directing the O.P.No.1 as follows;

 

ORDER

 

1.         The O.P.No.1 is hereby directed to provide a new tyre of same quality or pay a sum of Rs.31,000/- ( Rupees thirty one thousand) only towards the cost of tyre to the complainant.

2.         The O.P.No.1 is hereby further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only towards harassment, mental agony including cost of the case.

3.         All the aforesaid orders are to be carried out within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.P.No.1 shall be liable for interest @ 12% per annum on the abovementioned awarded amount(s) till realization. 

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 17^th day of July’ 2018 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule. 

        

 I Agree.                               I Agree                                                                                                

                                         

        A.Nanda,                                S.L.Behera,                                     S.K.Ojha,

        Member ( W)                           President                                         Member

                                            

                                             Dictated and corrected by me

 

             S.K.Ojha,

              Member