BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.198 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 07.05.2018                   Date of Decision: 16.09.2022

Satnam Singh, Age 65, Son of S. Gurbachan Singh, resident of Village Shahpur Lesriwal, P. S. Adampur, Tehsil and Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       The Manager, H. M. Corporation, Kawatara Complex, Shashtri         Market, Jalandhar City.

2.       The Incharge/Manager, CEAT Tyre Company, BSF Chowk,   Jalandhar City.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       None for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Vikas Sood, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased two tyres of CEAT Company from the OP No.1, who is selling the CEAT Tyres on behalf of the OP No.2 who is the dealer of the CEAT Tyres Company in this way the OPs are liable to provide services to the complainant. The complainant have a Scorpio Vehicle (Car) and he purchased Two Tyres (235-701/6) for the said vehicle from the OP No.1 for the total amount of Rs.12,000/-, vide receipt No.5427 dated 16.01.2017 of the CEAT Company and the OP No.1 told the complainant that the company has given guarantee of one year of the said tyres. At the time of the sale of the above said tyres, the OP No.1 assured and promised with the complainant that in case any defect will come in the said tyres within one year from the date of purchase of the tyres then the tyres will be replaced with new one or the price of the same will be returned to the complainant. On the assurance of the OP No.1, the complainant purchased the above said tyres but after the purchase of sometime one year became defective and the complainant approached the OP No.1 and the CEAT Company replaced the said tyre with new one. It was utter surprise to the complainant when the other tyre also became defective due to some manufacturing defect of the company and the complainant again approached the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 suggested the complainant to left tyre with him on 18.12.2017 within the limitation of guarantee/warranty period. When the complainant met the OP No.1 after sometime then the OP No.1 told the complainant that the said defective tyre has been sent to the OP No.2 for its replacement and suggested to come again after one week. When after one week the complainant again visited to the OP No.1, then the OP No.1 told the complainant that the claim of his tyre has been rejected and the said tyre is still lying with the OP No.2. Due to non-replacement of the said tyre, the vehicle of the complainant is parked at his house and the complainant is unable to use his vehicle and due to this reason the complainant is suffering with mental torture, agony and also suffered financial loss. The complainant also got served a legal notice to the OPs on 14.02.2018, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing harassment, mental torture and financial loss to the complainant and Rs.4000/- as cost of legal notice and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of the tyres till realization.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties. There is no cause of action against the answering OP. The complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct. The complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts before this Commission. The true facts are that the complainant purchased two tyres from the answering OP in 2017. Any claim with regard to the tyres can only be entertained by OP No.2. Nobody can take advantage of his own wrong. The claim of the complainant was processed but the claim was rejected as the claim does not come within the ambit. The claim was considered and the OP No.2 rejected the claim. The OP No.2 received the tyre, but the claim was rejected due to one sided wear, which is technical terminology used in tyre trade to describe a failure. However, this claim can only be logged before the OP No.2, so the answering OP is nothing to do. The terms mentioned on the bill are binding on the parties. So, the present complaint is to be dismissed on this ground. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the tyres is admitted and it is also admitted that the claim of the complainant was rejected, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that at the outset, the OPs are engaged in the business, interalia, of manufacturing and marketing of tyres, tubes and flaps. This OP sells its products to the dealers/original equipment manufacturers on a principal to principal basis. It is further averred that so far as the claim procedure and practices of this OP is concerned the tyre and tubes are returned to this OP through its dealers/original equipment manufacturers or directly at its Sales Offices by the consumers. Items under complaint are examined by this OP’s technical personnel. These technical personnel conduct visits to the offices/godowns to inspect the claim items, make decisions regarding adjustment or rejection as the case may be. Accordingly, this OP sends letters to the claimant. It is further averred that this OP is fully conscious of its responsibility to the consumers and its repudiation as one of the largest manufacturers in the tyre industry. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing of the tyres by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

5.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs only as none has appeared on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

7.                The complainant has filed the present complaint being the owner of the Scorpio Vehicle Car. It has been alleged by the complainant that he purchased two tyres for the said vehicle from the OP No.1 for Rs.12,000/-, vide receipt No.5427 dated 16.01.2017 of CEAT Company. It has been alleged that at the time of the sale of the                            tyres, the OP No.1 assured that in case any defect within a year from the date of purchase, the tyres will be replaced with new one or the price of the same shall be returned to the complainant, but after some time the tyre became defective and he complained to the OP No.1 of the same, who suggested him to leave the tyre with him. At the instance of the OP No.1, he left his tyre on 18.12.2017. He was told later on that the tyre has been sent to the OP No.2 and after few days, he was told that his claim has been rejected. He has alleged that the quality of the tyre was very poor. He sent legal notice to replace the tyre as the same was within warranty/guarantee period, but no reply to the legal notice has been filed.

8.                The OP on the other hand has denied the allegations and has proved the documents Ex.OPA/1 the Unconditional Warranty, Ex.OPA/2 the bill and the rejection of claim letter Ex.OPA/3. As per Ex.OPA/3, the claim for the change of tyre was rejected on the ground that the product has failed due to one sided wear and the failure is not due to any manufacturing defect of the product.

9.                Ex.OPA/1 is the unconditional warranty upto 50% wear or for 2 years from date of manufacture, whichever is earlier, was given. As per the bill Ex.OPA/2, the complainant purchased the tyres on 11.01.2017, whereas the tyres were damaged after few months as per submission of the complainant.

10.              The complainant has not produced on record the RC of the vehicle to show that he is the owner of the vehicle for which he purchased the tyres. However, the bill Ex.OPA/2 shows that he has purchased two tyres on 11.01.2017. The complainant has not produced any document to show that he has made any complaint to the OPs or got registered the complaint to anybody either to OP No.1 or to OP No.2 regarding the defect in his tyres. There is a letter on the record, which is claim receipt showing that the claim has been made by the complainant on 20.12.2017. Though the same has not been exhibited, but it shows that on 20.12.2017 for the first time, the claim was sent and the tyre was returned to the OP No.2. The letter Ex.OPA/3 shows that the claim has been rejected on the ground of ‘one sided wear’. This word is technical, which means that there is one sided wear in the tyre, which is generally caused by improper alignment, over inflation, under inflation or a worn-out suspension. Though, the OP has not produced on record the report of any technical engineer or expert to show that the tyre was checked technically by the engineer, but however, it is well settled law that the complainant is to stand on his own legs. The complainant has not proved that when did he make the complaint for the first time to the OPs. He has proved on record one bill Ex.C-4, which is a bill of supply. This shows that Rs.500/- were given, but for what purpose the same was given, has not been proved by the complainant. The complainant has also not proved on record any expert to prove that the damage in the tyre was due to manufacturing defect and not due to any fault of the complainant. He has also not produced on record any document to show that proper alignment was got done from time to time and there was no improper pressure in the tyre and the same was maintained completely. As per the record, the tyre was damaged after about 11 months of the purchase of the tyre and as per the complainant, the warranty/guarantee was given of one year and that was also almost to be completed on 11.01.2018 after the date of purchase. The complainant has also failed to prove that the tyre was having poor quality. So, from all the angles the complainant has failed to prove his case and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

16.09.2022         Member                          Member           President