BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.59 of 2013
Date of Institution : 1.3.2013
Date of Decision : 8.12.2015
Krishan Godara son of Sh.Indraj Godara, r/o village Farmail Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Taneja Tyre Services 174, Hissar Road, Sirsa through Namdev Taneja.
2. MRF Limited, SCO-32, Pocket, Sector-14, near Civil Hospital, Hisar through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL ……PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.S.Koura, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, complainant’s case is that he purchased four tyres for his car vide bill no.4237 dated 12.10.2012 on cash payment of Rs.11200/- from opposite party no.1 and manufactured by Op no.2. It was assured on behalf of the Op no.2 by Op no.1 that in case of any defect in the tyres within the guarantee period of one year, the same will be replaced immediately. After that, complainant noticed that tyres become mis-shaped/disfigured within a very short period. Upon this, he approached to Ops, who adopted the tactics and linger on the matter with one pretext or other and refused to replace the tyres. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and filed their written version. Ops took the preliminary objection that the tyre in questions were purchased by one Sh.Sanjay Kumar and subsequently Sanjay Kumar had given the tyres for inspection and inspection report was sent to Sanjay Kumar only and as such, complainant is not consumer under the definition of Consumer. Beside, the preliminary objection, Ops denied the remaining allegation of the complainant. It is further replied that guarantee/warranty, if any was only for manufacturing defect. It is further replied that one tyre of size 165/70 R14 81S ZVTV TL bearing Sr.No.6153763111 was received for examination from M/s Shakti Tyres on 19.11.2012 and on thorough examination by the technical Service Personnel of the OP, it was found that the said tyre was damaged due to thorough cut on side wall caused due to impact with sharp object. It was not due to any manufacturing defect. It is further pleaded that inspection report was sent to Mr.Sanjay Kumar on 24.11.2012. The tyres mentioned in the complaint are of good quality absolutely free from any manufacturing defect.
3. Both the parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2-photocopy of bill; Ex.C3-postal receipt, whereas the opposite parties have placed on record Ex.R1- supporting affidavit of Sh.Shivam Tiwari, Sales and Tech. Engineer of opposite party no.2; Ex.R2 photo copy of docket; Ex.R3-inspection report.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. First question to decide the present complaint is whether complainant is a consumer or not under the definition of Consumer as defined u/s 2(i)(d) of the Act? From the perusal of bill produced by the complainant as Ex.C2, it cannot be established that complainant himself purchased the tyre from Op no.1 as alleged by him against the payment of Rs.11200/-. In the column of name only cash has been written in place the name of purchaser. No address of the purchaser has been given in the bill. Beside it, there is no evidence to establish this fact except the self sworn affidavit of the complainant. On the other hand, various documents like affidavit Ex.R1, claim forwardic docket Ex.R2, customers name reflected is Sanjay Kumar s/o Krishan Lal, r/o Farmai Kalan. From perusal of inspection report Ex.RC address of the consumer is also given in the name of Sanjay Kumar. From the documents it reveals that tyres in question were related to one Sanjay Kumar s/o Krishan Lal, r/o Farmai Kalan. In the interest of justice, if it is presumed that Sanjay Kumar is son of Krishan complainant because both of them are of Farmai Kalan and name of father of Sanjay is Krishan but, complainant nowhere claimed that Sanjay Kumar is his son and the tyres were purchased by him. As such, under the definition of consumer, only Sanjay Kumar is the consumer and complainant does not fall under the ambit of consumer definition.
6. Now, coming to second question for decision of the case on merit, whether the tyres in question have any manufacturing defect or not? From the perusal of various documents produced by the Ops i.e. inspection report, it is established on record that tyre was damaged as a result of Through Cut on Sidewall due to impact with some sharp object. On the other hand, complainant failed to produce any technician/expert report to establish the fact that tyres have manufacturing defect. In the cases, where question of any defect in goods is involved expert/technician examinations are mandatory requirements as defined u/s 13 of the Act, but, complainant failed to comply with the provisions of the Act to establish the manufacturing defect in the tyres, whereas Ops successfully proved that tyres have no manufacturing defect and damage to the tyre was a result of Through Cut on Sidewall due to impact with some sharp object. In view of the case law cited in the case of M.R.F. Ltd. Vs. D.Anand 1991(1)CPR 583 (Andhra Pradesh), tyre was cut down by a sharp edged article. It was not a damage by any manufacturing defect.
7. As discussed above this complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:8.12.2015. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Krishan Godara Vs. Tanesa Tyre Services
Present: Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Arguments heard. For order to come up on 8.12.2015.
Presiding Member,
D.C.D.R.F,Sirsa.
Member. 30.11.2015
Present: Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been dismissed but with no order as to cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:8.12.2015. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
