Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 229.
Instituted on : 25.06.2014.
Decided on : 19.08.2015.
Raj Karan S/o Sh. Rameshwar R/o Village-Maina, Teh. & Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Tyre Ghar, Apollo Zone, Near Liberty Talkies, Delhi Road, Rothak through its Proprietor/Manager.
- Apollo Tyres Ltd. Institutional Area, Setor-32, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.V.S.Phogat, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he approached the opposite party for replacement of tyres of his car. The opposite party told that free replacement will be provided by Apollo Company on purchase of its tyres for a period of one year and on believing the version for opposite party the complainant purchased two tyres of Apollo company for a sum of Rs.5600/- vide bill no.4163 dted 26.11.2013. It is averred that just after few month of the purchase of said tyres same were cracked and its rubber has been stretched. The complainant approached the opposite party who inspected the tyres and found that there was no cut in the tyres and the same were cracked due to its own low quality. Opposite party also got checked the thickness of tyres and found that at the time of purchase the same was 7 mm and at present same is 6.7 mm, so it is clear that the same were cracked/stretched due to bad quality of tyres and complainant is not liable for the defect of the tyres in any manner. But the opposite parties instead of replacing the tyres of complainant had started demanding an amount of Rs.1300/- from the complainant in lieu of changing his tyres. It is averred that as per terms and conditions of the warranty the complainant is legally entitled to get replaced the same free of cost. Complainant requested the opposite party many a times in this regard but to no effect. As such it is averred that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the tyres of the complainant free of cost and to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- on account of mental agony, financial loss and harassment to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that opposite party no.1 is the tyre selling agent of the Apollo Tyres Ltd.. It is averred that the guarantee was of the Apollo Tyre company and the complainant could have written to the said company then the company would have sent the expert engineers for examinations of the tyres, whether it was the fault of manufacturing or of the user and by now the matter would have been solved. It is averred that the matter can only be solved after the technical examination of the company experts. It is averred that the opposite party can only reach to the conclusion only when the complainant makes the company as necessary party. However opposite party no.2 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.08.2014 of this Forum.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant had purchased two tyres of Rs.2600/- each total amounting to R.5200/- from the opposite party no.1 vide bill dated 26.11.2013 Ex.C4. It is also not disputed that the alleged tyres became defective within warranty period and the complainant contacted the opposite parties for replacement of the same but the opposite party no.1 has not replaced the same and has made a statement before this Forum on dated 04.08.2015 that if there is any defect in the disputed tyre, the liability of replacement/repair is of the manufacturing company and the refund if any will also be given by the manufacturer.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the complainant had purchased the tyres on 26.11.2013 and the defect appeared on 13.06.2014 i.e. within warranty period. But the opposite parties did not replace the same and as per product inspection report Ex.C3 has only given a replacement of Rs.1300/- whereas the tyre should be replaced free of costs within warranty period. It is also on record that the opposite party no.1 has stated that the liability if any of replacement is of the manufacturer but the opposite party no.2/manufacturer has not come present and was proceeded against exparte. As such it is presumed that opposite party no.2 has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant in his complaint stands proved. Complainant has also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2011(2)CLT 186 titled as United Auto Centre Vs. Gurpreet Singh whereby Hon’ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh has held that: “Tyres got damaged after covering only 2000 kms. within warranty period- Contention that damage caused to the tyres due to defective wheel balancing not substantiated-Held that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP by not replacing the defective tyres, which were in warranty period and has run only for 2000 kms.- Order of District Forum directing OP to replace the tyres with brand new tyres of same brand with fresh warranty as per company rules and compensation of Rs.5000/- upheld”.
8. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the opposite party no.2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of tyres i.e. Rs.5200/-(Rupees five thousand two hundred only) alongwith interet @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 25.06.2014 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.08.2015
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………..
Ved Pal, Member
