BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case  No : 402 of 2010

Date of Institution :  01.07.2010

Date of  Decision   :  12.05.2011

Vivek Sharma s/o Sh. O.P. Sharma, #111/2, Sector 55, Chandigarh.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]  Sahni Motors, Authorized Dealer of Apollo Tyres, SCO No.5, Motor Market, Sector 38 [West], Chandigarh.

[2]  Apollo Tyres Limited, SCF No. 233, Motor Market, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

[3]  Apollo Tyres Limited, through its Manager, Regd. Office 6^th Floor, Cherubushpam Buildings, Shanmugham Road, Kochi, Kerala-682011.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:   Sh.P.D. GOEL                    PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL          MEMBER

            DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: None for the Complainant.

OP No.1 already ex-parte.

None for OPs No. 2 & 3.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

           Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant complaint are that the Complainant purchased two new Apollo tyres from OP No.1 for sum of `3300/- against invoice no. 947, dated 11.05.2009. As per the retail invoice, the said tyres were carrying guarantee against manufacturing defect. It was alleged that one of the tyres burst, when the Complainant was driving the vehicle, due to which Complainant barely averted an accident. He approached OP No.1 on 26.5.2009 and apprised him the incident, upon which, the Complainant was told to hand over the burst tyre to OP No.1 for inspection. The said tyre was handed over to OP No.1 on 02.06.2009. Thereafter, the Complainant repeatedly visited the OPs No.1 & 2 with the request to replace the tyres. However, to his utter dismay, OP No.1 refused to replace the tyre, stating that there was no manufacturing defect in the same and the tyre was burst because of his mistake. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant failed to elicit any fruitful results, he got served a legal notice dated 04.10.2009, as a measure of last resort, calling upon the OPs to replace the burst tyre, but OPs did not take any action whatsoever. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]         Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs, seeking their version of the case.

3]         OP No. 1 did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte.

4]         OPs No.2 and 3 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, denied that the tyre in question was suffering from any manufacturing defect. It was pleaded that the alleged tyre was inspected by the technical person of the Company and upon examination, no manufacturing defect was found. The cause of defect given in the rejection report was “sidewall through cut”, which caused due to penetration of sharp object at sidewall of tyre. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5]         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]         We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the parties.

7]         The main contention of the Complainant was that the tyre in question burst, when the Complainant was driving the vehicle and he approached the OPs on 26.5.2009, where after, the OPs told him that the tyre in question be brought to them, for its inspection, which was handed over to the OPs on 2.6.2009. Thereafter, the OPs deputed a Technical Service Engineer, who is well trained and on the examination of the tyre in dispute, the said Engineer reported the cause of defect to be “sidewall through cut”, which caused due to penetration of sharp object at sidewall of tyre. He gave his technical report, which is now marked as Annexure R/1, wherein the contention of the Complainant was denied by the OPs, stating that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre in question.

8]         In reply to the complaint, the OPs No. 1 and 2 had alleged that the Complainant be directed to produce the tyre before this Forum, so that the defect may be seen by this Forum with the help of some technical expert, which has not been done by the Complainant, while the proceedings were going on with this Forum. Apart from this, there was no expert evidence produced by the Complainant to prove that it has a manufacturing defect. All the allegations leveled by the Complainant are mere bald assertions and does not carry any weight and there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. 

9]         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

10]        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.