Haryana

StateCommission

A/1143/2017

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJAY TANEJA - Opp.Party(s)

INDERJIT SINGH

15 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    1143 of 2017

Date of Institution:  22.09.2017

Date of Decision:    15.11.2017

 

Goodyear India Limited, registered Office at: Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad-121004, Haryana.

 

Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Sanjay Taneja son of Shri Kashimiri Lal Taneja, resident of House No.552/19, Green Road, Rohtak, Haryana.

 

Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

 

2.      Orion Motors Limited, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar.

 

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

3.      Shristi Hyundai, Jind Road, Near Power House, Rohtak.

 

Respondent No.3-Opposite Party No.3

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

   

 

Present:     Shri Inderjit Singh, counsel for the appellant.

                            

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL)

 

Goodyear India Limited, Faridabad-opposite party No.2 (appellant herein) is in appeal against the order dated 23^rd August, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby it directed the appellant to refund the price of two tyres purchased by Sanjay Taneja-complainant and Rs.1500/- litigation expenses to him.

2.      The complainant purchased Car bearing registration No.HR-12Z-3373. The car was fitted with tyres of Goodyear India Limited with one year warranty. After purchase of the Car, the defects were developed in the tyres. The tyres were under warranty period. He approached the appellant to replace the damaged tyres but to no avail.  

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the tyres were damaged due to bruise and as such did not fall under the warranty.

4.      It is not in dispute that the car was new one and bruises appeared in the tyres as per the Spot Inspection Report (Annexure A-2). In considered opinion of this Commission, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. The appeal is dismissed.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.6,972/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be released to Sanjay Taneja-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

6.      A copy of this order be sent to the complainant.

 

  

 

Announced 15.11.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

  D.R.