DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.366/2012
Shri K.K. Khurana
R/o A-33, Nizamuddin East,
New Delhi-110013.
….Complainant
Versus
M/s Universal Tyre House,
(Through Mr. Harpreet Singh & Mr. Gurpreet Singh)
24-25, Ajit Arcade,
Kailash Colony,
New Delhi-110048. ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 17.07.2012 Date of Order : 27.01.2018
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that OP is in the business of selling various brands of tyres including imported tyres, tubes and wheel accessories. Complainant in order to replace the tyres of one of vehicles owned by the complainant, on 10.03.2011, approached the shop of the OP for changing the tyres of his vehicle Toyota Innova bearing registration No. DL3CBD0878. Complainant requested the OP to put good tyres made by Indian Companies in his vehicle. OP lured the complainant into believing that Indian Tyres are of no such high quality and that the complainant must purchase imported tyres which are not only having high endurance capacity but they also last much longer. Apart from the quality, the imported tyres are reasonably priced. OP made vigorous and convincing representation to the complainant with regard to opting for imported tyres rather than buying Indian tyres, despite knowing the fact that the complainant had requested for Indian manufactured tyres for his vehicle. Believing on the representations made by the OP, complainant opted and purchased five tyres (including the stepny tyre) of “Silver Stone” vide invoice No. 42/4124 & 42/4125 dated 10.03.2011 for a total consideration of Rs.28,500/-. On 27.05.2011 while the complainant with his associates and other occupants of the vehicle was going for an extremely important meeting with his foreign clients, tyre purchased from the OP while in motion busted. The vehicle was at a reasonably good speed and due to the said busting, the vehicle severed violently on the road endangering the life of the occupants of the vehicle including the complainant. However, due to skillful driving and presence of mind of the driver, the life of all the occupants including that of the complainant was saved. After alighting from the vehicle, the complainant was shocked to come across the fact that the tyres had dilapidated and fractured beyond ‘recoganisation’. Not only did the tyres got severely damaged, the entire wheel of the vehicle including the rim has suffered substantial damage. The busting of the tyre has resulted in damaging the suspension as well as the shock absorbers of vehicle. After the incident, the complainant contacted the OP and apprised Shri Harpreet Singh Proprietor of the OP personally. The complainant informed him about the said mishap and the cause of such mishap. The complainant insisted that the other tyres of the vehicle may also be inspected for their roadworthiness. On inspection Shri Harpreet Singh proprietor of the OP claimed that the tyre had busted due to mistake of the driver of the vehicle and suggested that one more tyre needs replacement and insisted that the tyre will be on chargeable basis. Whereas the complainant insisted that it should not be chargeable as it is a manufacturing defect. OP refused to replace the tyre free of cost “but assured the complainant that any of the tyre found to be defective in future the opportunity undertakes to replace the entire set of tyres (five in number) free of cost”. Believing on the said suggestion, complainant acceded to the suggestion of Shri Harpreet Singh and got changed the other tyre alongwith the tyre which was damaged due to busting. It is submitted that OP in order to cover up its negligence and on the insistence of the complainant after greater reluctance replaced the damaged tyre free of cost. OP was not ready to change all the tyres. The separate invoice was generated by the OP bearing No. 8/734 dated 28.05.2011 for an amount of Rs.5700/-. Again in the month of June, 2011 the complainant with his associate and other occupants was travelling to Dehradun for some professional work. During the journey it was noticed that there were several uneven lumps visible on the tyres of the vehicle including the newly replaced ones. After reaching Delhi the complainant immediately contacted the OP and insisted that the OP must replace the entire set of tyres by tyres manufactured by any of the Indian company and also requested to refund the amount of Rs.5700/- paid for replacement of the one of the tyres. However, OP failed to comply with its responsibility as a diligent and dutiful dealer. Despite repeated requests and knowing full well that the OP had been deficient in providing service the OP failed to perform its part of the obligations. In fact the OP had been indulged in unfair trade practice by making false and misleading representation with regard to the quality, standard, grade, composition and characteristic of the tyres. A legal notice was issued to the OP on 02.03.2012 but OP failed to reply the same. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing following directions to the OP:-
- to refund the entire purchase amount of Rs.34,200/- to the complainant.
- To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant towards the mental agony and harassment.
- To pay an interest @ 18% on the amount of Rs. 34,200/- form the date of issuance of invoices and further to pay pendtelite and future interest.
- To pay the cost of litigation to the complainant.
OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 06.12.12 passed by our predecessors.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in exparte evidence and written arguments.
We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
OP has the knowledge about the filing of the complaint but has not chosen to contest it.
The Complainant has filed the tax invoice / retail invoice dated 10.03.2011 for an amount for Rs. 17,100/- as exhibit CW1/1, Tax Invoice/ Retail invoice dated 10.03.2011 for an amount of Rs.11,400/- as exhibit CW1/2 and tax invoice/ retail invoice dated 28.05.2011 for an amount of Rs.5700/- as exhibit CW1/3. Exhibit CW1/4 is the copy of the legal notice issued to the OP.
Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the Complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged.
Onus to prove that there was some manufacturing defect in the five tyres in question was on the complainant. In order to prove this fact the complainant should have got the tyres inspected from some expert in the field and filed the report in the Forum.
The mere averments made by the complainant himself that the five tyres in question suffered from manufacturing defect or that the complainant had been induced to purchase imported tyres instead of Indian tyres having superiority with regard to the quality, standard, grade, composition and characteristics of the tyres are not sufficient to prove that the OP was/ is guilty of unfair trade practice. In order to prove the manufacturing defect or any other defect in the five tyres in question, complainant ought to have got the same inspected from the expert in the field. However, he has not done so. Therefore, we are not inclined to believe the bare averments made in the complaint and the exparte evidence of the complainant.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to hold that the OP had committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 27.01.2018
