DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.97 of 2011
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 14.02.2011
DATE OF ORDER: -05.12.2016
Vikram Sharma son of Shri Radhey Shyam, resident of village Mithathal, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Raghu Hyundai, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani through its Manager.
- United India Insurance Company Limited near Redcross Office, Chiriya Ghar Road, Bhiwani through Manager.
- Tyer Palace SCO No. 66 Mandi Town near Anaj Mandi Bhiwani through Manager.
- Apollo Tyres Ltd., 546/2 Shyam Auto Market, Hisar Road Rohtak through Manager.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Sh. Pardeep Vashisth, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for opposite party no. 1.
Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no. 2.
Ops no. 3 & 4 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that in the month of February 2016 he had purchased a car Hyundai from OP no. 1 and said vehicle was insured from OP no. 2 from 03.02.2010 to 02.02.2011. It is alleged that the two tyres of the car after some time, became defective. The complainant deposited both tyres with OP no. 2 as per the direction of OP no. 1. It is alleged that the OP no. 3 refused to replace the defective tyres on the ground that the tyres are not having manufacturing defect and issued rejection letter in respect of both tyres respectively. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that the complaint of the complainant was forwarded to the Ops no. 3 & 4 and the same was entertained by them. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 filed separate written statement alleging therein that as the insurance company has no responsibility in respect of replacement of the alleged defected tyre of the insured car with a new one or to make the payment of the cost of the alleged defective tyre to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. OP no. 4 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that complaint is not maintainable against the answering respondent as the complainant has not produced any evidence/report of an expert on record to prove that the tyre in question was suffering from any manufacturing defect. It is submitted that there is no manufacturing defect was found. It is submitted that the answering company inspected the tyre on same day and returned it hence never made complainant to visit again and again. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 4. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
5. OPs no. 3 & 4 have failed to come present. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 11.04.2012 & 03.11.2014.
6. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8 alongwith supporting affidavit.
7. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party no. 1 & 2 has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 alongwith supporting affidavit.
8. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the two tyres of the car of the complainant after some time, became defective. The complainant deposited both tyres with OP no. 2 as per the direction of OP no. 1. The OP no. 3 refused to replace the defective tyres on the ground that the tyres are not having manufacturing defect and issued rejection letter Annexure C-2 and C-4 in respect of both tyres respectively.
10. Learned counsel for OP No. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. The counsel for the OP no. 1 submitted that the OP no. 1 is the dealer of the car and the warranty of both tyres, battery etc. are governed by their manufacturer. The counsel for the OP no. 2 submitted that the defect in the tyres is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy of the vehicle. Hence the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable against the answering opposite parties.
11. The written statement has been filed on behalf of OP no. 4. Later on the OP no. 4 was proceeded against exparte. In the written statement the OP no. 4 has contended that the tyres in question was not having any manufacturing defect as per the inspection report attached with the written statement. Therefore, the OP no. 4 is not bound to replace the tyres in question.
12. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The complainant himself produced the rejection letter Annexure C-2 and C-4 for both tyres respectively. In both rejection letters the cause of failure has been mentioned as “Impact Break”. The complainant has not produced any cogent evidence in support of his contention to prove that the tyres in question were having manufacturing defect. In the absence of any material on behalf of the complainant regarding manufacturing defect of the tyres in question, the claim of the complainant cannot sustain. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merits. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 06.12.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member.
