Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/242/2014

Baljinder Singh s/o Sh.Gurdev Singh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shakti Tyres - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhvinder Punia

01 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                                Complaint No. 242 of 2014.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 21.05.2014

                                                                                                Date of decision: 01.05.2017.

Baljinder Singh aged about 29 years son of Shri Gurdev Singh, R/o V. Shahpur, P.O. Bherthal, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Shakti Tyres ( MRF Tyres Dealer) Gobindpuri Road, Yamuna Nagar, through its proprietor.
2. MRF Limited, (MRF Tyres Distributor) Jyoti Palace Road, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar.
3. MRF Corporation Limited (MRF Tyres Manufacturer) Head Office, 826, Tarapore, 5^th Floor Anna Salai Mount Road, Chennai-600002.

                                                                                                                                      …Respondents.

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Sukhvinder Punia Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              None for Respondent No.1.   

              Sh. Harbhajan Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents No.2 & 3.

 

ORDER   (ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 amended up to date.  

2,                     Brief facts of the present complaint as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a pair of MRF tyres from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs. 8600/- vide Bill No. 22256 dated 22.08.2013. On putting to use out of the two tyres, one tyre has left its edge and has started creating trouble in smooth plying of the vehicle and as a result of this defect in the tyre there is an apprehension of burst at any time. The tyre in question was having manufacturing defect. Accordingly, the complainant visited the OP No.1 many times and requested to change the defective tyre but the OpNo.1 put off the matter on one pretext or the other. A legal notice dated 25.04.2014 given by the complainant was duly received by him but despite that the OP No.1 has not changed the tyre rather sent a vague reply to that notice. Hence, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement typed on letter pad and mentioned therein that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of parties as the OP No.1 is only dealer of OPs No.2 & 3 and if there is any manufacturing defect in the tyre in question then the OPs No.2 & 3 who are manufacturer of the tyre are responsible for the same. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP No.1.

4.                     OPs No.2 & 3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as a false complaint has been filed even the complainant has not mentioned serial number of the tyre alleged to have been damaged; complaint is not maintainable since the defective tyre has not got inspected under section 13(1)( C) of the Consumer Protection Act and on merit purchase of two (2) tyres of MRF Company vide Bill No. 22256 dated 22.08.2013 for a sum of Rs. 8600/- is denied for want of knowledge. The OPs No.2 & 3 has neither given any performance guarantee/warranty regarding tyres to the complainant nor authorized any person to give the same. The warranty/guarantee, if any, is only regarding manufacturing defect in the tyre i.e. due to usage of defective material/faulty workmanship. It has been further mentioned that the tyre of size LT195/80D15SM12N8 bearing serial No. 56047023013 was received for examination from Om Tyres, Jagadhri on 22.02.2014. After receipt of the said tyre, complaint docket notification No. 802552172 dated 22.02.2014 was raised and the said tyre was thoroughly inspected by the technical service engineer Mr. Ankit Singh and it was found that the tyre was damaged due to Rim Digging caused on a result of tyre running with inadequate air pressure. This was not due to any manufacturing defect of the tyre. The inspection report dated 22.02.2014 was sent to the complainant on 24.02.2014 with the directions to collect the rejected tyre from Om Tyres, Jagadhri. Rest contents of the complaint were denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of RC Annexure C-1, Photo copy of purchase bill as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of reply of legal notice dated 26.04.2014 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of legal notice dated 25.04.2014 as Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 failed to adduce any evidence, hence the evidence of the complainant was closed by court order dated 14.09.2016.

7.                     Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ankit Kumar Singh, Sales Technical Engineer MRF Ltd. as Annexure RW2/A and documents such as photo copy of rejection letter/ inspection report dated 22.02.2014 as Annexure R2/1, Photo copy of reply of legal notice as Annexure R2/2, Photo copy of power of attorney as Annexure R2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     It is not disputed that the complainant purchased two tyres vide bill No. 22256 dated 22.08.2013 for a sum of Rs. 8600/- from the OP No.1 manufactured by OPs No.2 & 3 for his Maxi truck bearing registration No. HR-58A-6975.

10.                   The only version of the complainant is that out of two tyres, one tyre became defective as tyre has left its edge and has started creating trouble in smooth plying of the vehicle and as a result of this defect, there was apprehension of burst at any time and due to which he visited the Op no.1 and requested for replacement of the same but the OP No.1 flatly refused to do the same. Hence, there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

11                    On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 argued at length that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre in question as alleged by the complainant. It has been further argued that a tyre bearing serial No. 56047023013 was received for examination from Om Tyres on 22.02.2014 and on inspection it was found that it was damaged due to rim digging caused on a result of tyre running with inadequate air pressure. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that there was no manufacturing defect and the complainant has failed to prove his case by moving any application under section 13(1)( c) of the Consumer Protection Act and draw our attention towards the rejection letter/inspection report dated 22.02.2014 Annexure R-2/1 and lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12                    After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3. From the perusal of inspection/rejection report dated 22.02.2014 Annexure R2/1, one thing is clear that the tyre in question was defective. Further, from this report it is also clear that the tyre in question become defective within a short span of time i.e. from the date of purchase i.e. 22.08.2013 to 22.02.2014. The stand taken by the OPs No.2 & 3 that the tyre in question damaged due to “Rim Digging Caused on a result of tyre running with inadequate air pressure.” seems not genuine and has been created just to save the skin from the liability, otherwise it cannot be presumed that an owner of vehicle will speak lie for a petty amount i.e. cost of one tyre i.e. Rs. 4300/-. The plea of the OPs No.2 & 3 that no application under section 13(1)( c) of the Consumer Protection Act has been filed by the complainant is also not tenable as when the Ops No.2 & 3 company has placed on file its own inspection report from which it is clear that the tyre in question was defective then there was no need to move another application for inspection of tyre in question.

13                    In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that OPs No.2 & 3 has wrongly and illegally rejected the entire claim of the complainant. Now question arises that to what extent the complainant is entitled to get relief? It cannot be ignored that complainant used the tyre in question for commercial vehicle and used it for near about 5-6 months, so, he is not entitled to get the entire amount of Rs. 4300/- i.e. cost of one tyre. However, in our view an amount of Rs. 2500/- will be sufficient to meet the end of justice. Hence, the complainant is entitled for same, the tyre in question was manufactured by OPs No.2 & 3 so, only Ops No.2 & 3 are liable to pay the amounts. Complaint qua Op No.1 is hereby dismissed.

14.                   Resultantly we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to pay Rs. 2500/- to the complainant as depreciated cost of one tyre and further to pay a sum of Rs. 1100/- as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days failing which complainant shall be entitled to recover the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.05.05.2017.

 

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                                        DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR.

 

 

 

              (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)       (S.C.SHARMA    )

               MEMBER                                        MEMBER