Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/606/2013

Sanjay Aggarwal S/o Narinder Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager/ Managing Director ,M/s Metro Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Saurabh Bansal

01 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                          Complaint No. 606  of  2013.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 19.08.2013

                                                                                          Date of decision: 01.04.2016.

Sanjay Aggarwal aged about 45 years son of Narinder Aggarwal, Proprietor M/s Aggarwal Medical Agencies, Near Anand Market Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                               …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The Manager/ Managing Director, M/s Metro Motor, Authorized Dealer, TATA Motor, Bhai Kanhiya Sahib Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana). 
2. The Manager/ Managing Director, M/s Metro Motor, 106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.
3.  The Northern Regional Manager, Tata Motor, SCO 170-171-172, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
4. Apollo tyres Limited, Service Centre, Old Hamida Saharanpur Road Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar through its Manager/ Partners/Proprietor.

                                             …Respondents. 

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Saurabh Bansal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3.

              OP No.4 ex-parte. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.                   

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that on 24.07.2012 the complainant had purchased a car Indigo CS make TATA Motors bearing No. HR-02AA-6050 from respondents No.1 & 2 (hereinafter referred as OPs No.1 & 2) who are the authorized dealer of OP No.3 whereas Op No.4 is the authorized service centre of Apollo Tyres. At the time of delivery of the said car the officials of the OPs No.1 & 2 assured the complainant that car is having exclusive 12 months warranty since the time of its purchase. In December 2012, when the car was at workshop of OP No.1 for its second service, it was noticed by the service engineer, that one tyre, make “Apollo” of the said car received bubbles at some places and then it has assured to the complainant by the officials of OP No.1, that the same is nothing and after its day to day use the same will be removed itself. But, as the time passed, the bubbles in the tyre were growing up and accordingly the matter was again reported to OP No.1 as the tyre in question were in warranty period alongwith the car. After advised by OP No.1, the complainant visited at Apollo Tyre at Yamuna Nagar i.e. OP No.4 and shown the defective tyres to the but after inspecting the tyre in question, the Apollo Inspector gave some unreasonable report and under the shed of false report, they refused to replace the defective tyre on the pretext that only the authorized dealer of the car will be responsible for any warranty. It has been further stated that complainant had purchased the car in question to meet his day to day needs but due to defect in tyre, the complainant become unable to fulfill the requirements of his day to day needs. Moreover, in the meantime, the complainant also remained in touch with the OPs as all four tyres of the car have also received cracks therein but despite several repeated visits and repeated requests of the complainant, the defective tyre of the car have not been changed by either of respondents. A complaint was also lodged on its toll free No. 1800 209 7979 and through e-mails also but all in vain. Further, due to defect in the car, in the month of June 2013, the car of the complainant met with a road side accident as the complainant was in the way to his shop at Yamuna Nagar and the front tyre of the car had burst and car was struck in the divider and the complainant had spent Rs. 26,882/- on its repair. A legal notice was also served on the OPs No.1 and 2 and despite receiving the legal notice, the OPs remained failed to accede the genuine request of the complainant. Lastly prayed that OPs be directed either to replace all the defective tyes with new tyres or to refund total the sale price of the said defective tyres and further to pay Rs. 26882/- i.e.cost of repair of car and Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared and filed its written statement separately whereas OP No.4 failed to appear despite service, hence OP No.4 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.11.2013.

 4.                    OPs No.1 & 2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, without jurisdiction, not a consumer dispute, out of warranty, no liability being a dealer and OPs No.1 & 2 are nowhere related regarding defect in the tyre and OP No.4 who is the manufacturer –cum- dealer of the Apollo Tyre is only liable, so, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP No.1 & 2. It has been further stated that the tyre was inspected by M/s Apollo Tyres and the same was rejected as per complaint No.34157 dated 12.3.2013 (Product Inspection report Annexure C-1) but even then, OPs No.1 & 2 are not liable as per condition No.4 of the warranty card and on merit reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     OP No.3 filed its written statement and reiterated the stand taken by OPs No.1 & 2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 6.                    To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of product inspection report dated 12.03.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill of repair as Annexure C-2, Copy of legal notice as annexure C-3, Photo copies of postal receipts as Annexures C-4 & 5, Photo copy of reply of legal notice as Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.    

7.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Y.P.Das, Managing Director, Metro Motors, Ambala Cantt as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of terms and conditions of warranty card as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 to 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 minutely & carefully.

 9.                     It is an admitted case that the complainant purchased a car Indigo CS on 24.7.2012 from OPs No.1 & 2 and manufactured by OP No.3 in which the tyre make Apollo i.e. manufactured by OP No.4 were fitted in the said car. The only version of the complainant is that at the time of second free service, it had come to the notice that one tyre of the said car received bubbles at some places i.e. was having manufacturing defect and on the advise of OP No.1, the complainant visited the office of Apollo Tyre at Yamuna Nagar for the replacement of the same but the request of the complainant was declined by the OP No.4 on the false and flimsy ground i.e. impact brake/side wall cut, which is evident from product inspection report dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure C-1). We have perused the rejection letter i.e. product inspection report dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure C-1) minutely from which it is evident that complainant had visited the office of OP No.4 on 12.03.2013 when the car of the complainant had run 12000 KMs only with the problem of bubbles and burst of one tyre. As the car of the complainant had run only 12000 KM and one tyre of the said car was burst and the claim of the complainant has been rejected on the ground of impact/side wall cut it does not seems to be genuine as the OP No.4 failed to contest the complaint and remained ex-parte. The version of the complainant is duly supported by his unrebutted affidavit. Moreover, OPs No.1 to 3 has nowhere mentioned in their reply that the tyre in question was burst due to the negligence of the complainant himself. Even, the OPs No.1 and 2 has not specifically denied that their service engineer has not noticed the bubbles at some places in the tyre in question as alleged by the complainant in para No.4 of his complaint. No doubt OPs No.1 to 3 are only the dealers and manufacturer of the car in question and have no liability in respect of tyres fitted in the car in question as per their terms and conditions of the warranty for which the OP No.4 is only responsible. The version of the complainant is duly supported by his unrebutted evidence and OP No.4 remained ex-parte. Hence, we have no option except to accept the complaint of complainant. However, complainant has failed to file any cogent evidence that all the four tyres of the car in question were damaged. From the perusal of Annexure C-1, product inspection report dated 12.3.2013, it is evident that complainant was having problem in one tyre only and further the complainant has not disclosed the cost of one tyre and in the absence of any specific cost of one tyre, we are unable to award the specific cost of the one tyre in question. However, by way of guess work we award an amount of Rs. 3000/- as cost of one tyre to the complainant.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Op No.4 to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant as cost of one tyre and further to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. 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. 01.04.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

                                               

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA   )

                                                                                    MEMBER