Karnataka

Gadag

CC/2/2015

Ravindra S/o Maartandappa Mulimani. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Apollo Tyres Ltd, Gurgaon & Others - Opp.Party(s)

S.A.Sangnaal

18 Jun 2016

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs. 

 

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant purchased 04 numbers of APPOLO tyres on 14.11.2014 by the OP No.3. By paying Rs.22,800/- bearing bill No.6346 and fitted for his vehicle.

 

3.      On 20.11.2014 the Complainant was travelling from Binkadakatti, Gadag to Belgavi in his vehicle near to the Unakal of Hubli the tyre bearing the product No.RTGFROAHT-3-ASI fitted on the rare right side of the vehicle got busted, the Complainant left the vehicle their only on the spot and continued his journey in a cab and returned to the Binkadakatti from which the Complainant has suffered great difficulties in his business of the day.

 

4.      The Ops had given one year warranty for the tyres purchased. Hence, the Complainant informed the defect occurred to OP No.3 on 21.11.2014 and as to replace the tyre. The Ops have not responded properly nor the replaced the tyre.

 

5.      Complainant issued a notice to the Ops through his counsel on 08.12.2013 for which the OPs have not replied. The Complainant had alleged that the Ops have supplied poor quality product hence the Complainant has filed this Complaint and has prayed to order the OP to replace the defective tyre with a new one and a special compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and taxi fare of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards loss occurred on the business of the day.

 

6.      The predecessor on the seat registered the Complaint and notice was issued to OPs. The OP No.1 appeared before this Forum through his Advocate and filed his written version. On the other hand OP No.2 and 3 remained absent.

Brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.1:

The OP No.1 submits that the Complainant had not produced any evidence/report of an Expert on record to prove that the tyre was suffering from any manufacturing defect and alleged tyre was inspected by the technical person of the Company and found no manufacture defects. The OP further states that the transaction and communication between the Complainant and OP No.3 is not in the knowledge of OP No.1 and denied that the alleged tyre is damaged in ordinary circumstances after few days of fitment and also denied that the tyre had been given any unconditional warranty for one year and stated that as a customer friendly policy. The products having manufacturing defects may be replaced on pro-rata basis only.

 

7.      The OP further submits that the alleged tyre was inspected by the Technical Service Engineer of the OP and defect was found as side wall through cut which had been caused due to penetration of sharp object on side wall of the tyre. Further, the OP No.1 submits that there is no manufacturing defect in the alleged tyre due to this reason, the replacement had denied by the OP. Hence, the OP had not done any deficiency in his service, the Op had prayed that the prayer made by the Complainant in Complaint is incorrect and baseless, no mental or physical loss of business had caused. Hence, Complaint may be dismissed with cost. 

 

8.      On perusal of the Complaint, allegation and detailed version, the documents on records the Complainant himself has been examined before this Forum as CW1 and got marked the documents as EX. C1 to EX C6 are as follows:

1)  EX C1 Original Bill

2)  EX C2 Receipt,

3)  EX C3 Legal Notice

4)  EX C4 to EX C6 Postal Acknowledgement

 

        On the other hand, OP No.1 filed a written version along with unmarked 03 documents are as follows:

1.   Power of Attorney
2.   Authorization Letter,
3.   Rejection Letter

9.      On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:   

1.   2.	Whether the Complainant proves that OPs have made unfair trade practice?   Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
3.	What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative,

Point No.3 – As per the final order.

                

R E A S O N S

 10.  POINT NO.1 and 2:  Since both the points are inter-link and identical, we proceed with both the points together.

11.   This is the specific case of the Complainant that the Complainant has purchased four APPOLO tyres from OP No.3 on 14.11.2014 by paying Rs.22,800/- for his vehicle, then the tyres were fitted to vehicle on same day, on 20.11.2014 the Complainant went to Belgavi in the same vehicle on the way to Belganvi near Unakal of Hubli. The rare side of the right end tyre got bust, the same had been informed to OP No.3 on 21.11.2014 and requested to replace the same with new one.

 

12.         The OP NO.1 had rejected the claim stating the reason that the failure is not due to any manufacture defect/not covered under customer friendly claim policy and shown the causes of failure or penetration of sharp object at side wall.

 

13.         The Complainant had purchased four tyres for his vehicle in which one tyre got busted when the Complainant was travelling in his vehicle, within a short period of 6 days after purchase, the OP No.1 in his Written Version states that the tyre in question was inspected by the Technical Service Engineer, for the cause of defect was found as side wall through cut was caused due to penetration of sharp object at side wall. But, the OP No.1 had failed to produce the reports submitted by their Service Engineer. Blindly it cannot be accepted that the tyre which is within six days of purchased will be penetrated by the purchaser. Apart from this, the Complainant has produced alleged tyre before the Forum. It is observed that the tyre had been got busted due to some defect on the side wall. The OP as stated in his Written Version report as “Inspection Report is Self-explanatory”. But OP had not filed any Inspection Report before this Forum, merely mentioning it in a rejection letter is not acceptable it shows the negligency of the OP towards their customers and moreover, they have not came forward to lead their evidence before the Forum and not examined the Service Engineer in their support. Such being the case, it cannot be concluded that the Complainant had penetrated the tyre from his negligency. After perusing the tyre, it clearly shows that the tyre got busted in the side wall due to manufacturing defect.

 

14.         The reason best known to OP No.1, he had not filed any Chief Affidavit nor came forward to lead his evidence inspite of giving several opportunities, the OP failed to prove that the alleged defect was not a manufacturing defect nor filed any report of Service Engineer. Hence, the Ops are liable to replace the damaged tyre with a new one or to pay the cost of the same along with the compensation as order. Hence, we answer Point No.1 is affirmative and Point No.2 is partial affirmative.      

 

 

 

 

  15.     POINT NO.3: For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass a following:  

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partly allowed with costs.
2. The OP No.1 to 3 are directed to replace the damaged tyre with a new one or the cost of the same of Rs.5,700/- (Rupees five thousand seven hundred).
3. The OP No.1 to 3 are directed to pay the compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) Rs.1,000/- each towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand)  towards litigation charges to the Complainant.
4. The Ops are directed to comply this order within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which OPs have to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the cost of the tyre from the date of purchase, till realization.
5. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 18^th day of June, 2016)

 

Member

Member

President