Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/802/2013

Mange Ram S/o Prem Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vushal Tyres - Opp.Party(s)

Bhanwar Singh

19 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                          Complaint No. 802  of  2013.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 07.11.2013

                                                                                          Date of decision: 19.08.2016.

Mange Ram aged about 55 years son of Sh. Prem Chand resident of H. No. 2287, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                 …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Vishal Tyres, Aggarsain Chowk, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Manager/ Prop./Partner.
2. Metro Motors, Tejli Gate, Near LIC Office, Jagadhri-135003, District Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.  

                 …Respondents. 

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Bhanwar Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Manoj Khurdi, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

              Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay the cost of defective tyre i.e. Rs. 2250/- alongwith interest as well as compensation and litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a Nano Car bearing registration No. HR-02AA-7760 from Op No.2 i.e. dealer of the manufacturing company of the car in question. The tyres which were fitted in the said vehicle/car at the time of its purchase were defective so  the OP No.2 replaced the two tyres with make of MRF Radial free of costs after getting the same from OP No.1 vide Bill No. 834 dated 06.07.2013 (Annexure C-2) for an amount of Rs. 4500/- ( 2250x2=4500). At the time of replacing the tyres in question, the Op No.1 assured the complainant that these tyres are of best quality and complainant will not face any problem but it was very appalling and astonishing for the complainant as only after few days one tyre out of aforesaid two (2) tyres became defective as it was swelled due to which complainant faced great hardship in plying the car in question. Thereafter, the complainant approached to OP No.2 and told about the said defects in the tyre and Op No.2 after checking the same found that tyre in question was having problem of swelling, so, he directed the OP No.1 to do the needful and get the defective tyre replaced being under warranty vide their warranty repair memo No. 55 dated 19.07.2015 (Annexure C-3). After that, complainant went to Op No.1 with the aforesaid warranty repair memo and requested to replace the defective tyre of the same cost and of the best quality but the OP No.1 instead of conceding the request of the complainant flatly refused to replace the defective tyre. Having no alternate, complainant purchased new tyre worth Rs. 2100/- from M/s Singh Tyre, Vishvakarma Chowk, Yamuna Nagar vide bill No. 216 dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure C-1). Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts; complaint is not maintainable; complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; there exist no relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties and on merit, it has been specifically denied that complainant purchased any tyre from OP No.1 because as per the record of Op No.1, there is no such bill in the name of complainant rather it is in the name of OP No.2 from the Op No.1. Further it has been denied being wrong that Op No.1 charged a sum of Rs. 4500/-. Further, it has been mentioned that as the complainant has not purchased any tyre from the Op No.1, therefore, it cannot be said that OP No.1 gave any warranty. Further, OP No.1 is selling the tyre of the company only subject to warrant policy of the company and in case there is any complaint, OP No.1 send the same to the company and it is for the company to decide about the same and this fact is clearly mentioned on the bill/cash memo. Lastly, it has been stated that complainant has concocted a false story and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua Op No.1.

4.                     Op No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as there is no deficiency or any unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2; the present complaint is not maintainable, since the manufacturer of the vehicle i.e. TATA Motors, New Delhi has not been impleaded as proper and necessary party as the warranty was given by them as such the complaint is defective because the rear tyre were replaced under good will warranty, to which it was purchased from Vishal Tyres on payment basis just to close the chapter and the warranty was provided by MRF tyre manufacturer who has also not been impleaded as necessary party, to which Op No.1 is liable so the complaint qua OP No.2 is liable to be dismissed and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and photo copies of documents i.e. Bill No. 216 dated 10.08.2013 as Annexure C-1, Bill bearing No. 834 dated 06.07.2013 as Annexure C-2, Memo of warranty repairs issued by OP No.2 dated 19.07.2013 as Annexure C-3 and closed his evidence. 

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for Op No.1 failed to adduce any evidence and its evidence was closed by court order dated 31.03.2016.

7.                     Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Bikram Singh, Service Manager as Annexure RW2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.2.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely & carefully.

 9.                    It is not disputed that complainant purchased the car in question from OP No.2. It is also not disputed that the two rear tyres of the car in question were replaced by OP No.2 through Op No.1 Vishal tyres which is evident from the copy of Bill No. 834 dated 06.07.2013 (Annexure C-2) which has been issued in the name of Metro Motors in respect of 2 tyres radial of Rs. 2250/- each by Op No.1. This fact has also been admitted by Op No.2 in para No.3 of the preliminary objections of its written statement wherein it has been so recorded that “ since the manufacturer of the vehicle has not been impleaded as proper and necessary party i.e. M/s Tata Motorss New Delhi, vide which the warranty was given by them and as such the complaint is defective, because the rear tyre were replaced under goodwill warranty to which it was purchased from Vishal Tyres on payment basis just to close the chapter and the warranty was provided by MRF tyre. “

10.                   From the perusal of memo warranty repair dated 19.07.2013 (Annexure C-13) issued by OP No.2 to the OP No.1 it is clearly evident that one tyre was having problem of swelling due to which complainant was forced to purchase new tyre amounting to Rs. 2100/- within a short span of time which is clearly evident from the copy of bill No.216 dated 10.08.2013 (Annexure C-1). Although, the manufacturer company of the car in question and manufacturer of the tyre in question have not been impleaded as a party by the complainant even then OPNo.2 cannot escape from its liability as the complainant has purchased the car in question from OpNo.2. Moreover, when the OP No.2 replaced two tyres through OP No.1 at his own cost, so, it cannot be said that the tyre in question were not under warranty. Further, the OP No.2 has himself admitted that one tyre was having problem of swelling and for that he issued memo warranty repair to, MRF tyre, so it cannot be presumed that tyre in question was not having any defect and version of the complainant is not true.

11.                   In the circumstanced noted above, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 as the OP No.2 has failed to replace the tyre in question through OP No.1 with of good quality and complainant was forced to purchase a tyre amounting to Rs. 2100/- from the local market which is evident from Annexure C-1. Hence, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint of complainant.  

12.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Op No.2 to pay a sum of Rs. 2100/- to the complainant as cost of one tyre within a period of 30 days failing which complainant shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the defaulting period. However Op No.2 is at liberty to recover the same from OP No.1 as per law. Further, the OP No.2 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well 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. 19.08.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT                                 

 

 

                                               

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                    MEMBER