BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 84 of 2015
Date of Institution : 27.4.2015
Date of Decision : 09.11.2016
Subhash Chander son of Sh. Ladhu Ram, resident of village Ali Mohammad, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Ralson India Ltd (Ralco) (Regional Office) SCF No.30, 1st Floor, Opp. Nagar Sudhar Mandal Office, Appughar Complex- Rohtak (Hry) through its Manager/ Auth. Person.
2. Kumar Tyre Centre, Opp. Radha Swami Satsang Ghar, Hisar Road, Sirsa (Hry) through its Prop/ Partner/ Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rakesh Pareek, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Net Ram Sharma, BM on behalf of opposite party no.1.
Sh. Manish Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief is that he had purchased tyre of Ralco company from opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.2150/- vide bill No.7737 dated 3.1.2015. The tube of the tyre used to become puncture on every day due to manufacturing defect in the tyre. The complainant approached the opposite party no.2 and told about this problem but instead of hearing the complainant, op no.2 declared that there is no problem in the tyre. The op no.2 did not hear him and ousted him from his shop. In this way, the opposite parties have cheated the complainant by giving defective tyre. The complainant also got served a registered legal notice dated 31.1.2015 upon ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 filed reply wherein sale of tyre to the complainant by op no.2 is admitted. It is submitted that tyre’s condition is ok which was checked by the dealer as well as by Sh. Pawan Khurana, Sale Supervisor of the company in the presence of complainant. There was no complaint found during inspection of the tyre. During inspection of the tyre, they found punctured tube of other company ceat in the tyre due to which there was leakage of air in tub and this fact was noted by complainant also.
3. Opposite party no.2 in separate written statement also pleaded the similar facts as pleaded by op no.1 besides submitting that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre in question.
4. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, bill Ex.C2, legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipts Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 and acknowledgments Ex.C6 and Ex.C7. On the other hand, op no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.R1. OP no.2 tendered photographs Ex.R2 to Ex.R8.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant, Sh. Net Ram, BM on behalf of op no.1 and learned counsel for op no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. Except the oral assertions of the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the tyre, there is no authentic evidence on file to prove the same. The complainant has not placed on file any expert opinion in support of his contentions. On the other hand, it is proved by opposite parties through photographs that complainant was using tube of another company i.e. Ceat in the said tyre which was in very worst condition having punctures and cut. It is also proved through photographs that tyre is in okay condition. Therefore, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 9.11.2016 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
