State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Goodyear India Ltd. vs Dr. Pippal Singh Sandhu on 20 May, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 437 of 2014
Date of institution: 15.4.2014
Date of Decision: 20.5.2015
M/s Goodyear India Ltd., having its Head Office at Mathura Road,
Ballabgarh, District Faridabad (Haryana) through its Managing
Director/Chairman/Authorized Signatory and having its Corporate Office at
First Floor, ABW Elegance Tower, Plot no. 8, Commercial Centre Jasola,
New Delhi - 110025.
Appellant/Op No. 2
Versus
1. Dr. Pippal Singh Sidhu son of Sh. Hardeep Singh, resident of Shri
Hargobind Nagar, Street No. 5, Near Harkrishan Public School,
Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.
Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. B.S. Traders, Distributor of Goodyear and Ceat and Authorized
Dealer Apollo, having its office at G.T. Road, Malout, District Sri
Muktsar Sahib, Punjab through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized
Signatory.
Respondent No.2/OP No. 1
First Appeal against the order dated 19.2.2014
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
2
FIRST APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2014
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Ex.-parte.
For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte.
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/OP No.2 (hereinafter referred as "OP No.2") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 19.2.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib(hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No.133 dated 5.7.2013 vide which the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant(hereinafter referred as the complainant) was partly allowed. OP No. 2 was directed to replace the tyres without charging anything from the complainant and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses to be paid equally by OP Nos. 1 & 2. In case the order not complied within two months from the date of receipt of the order then pay interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of order till payment.
2. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the OPs on the averments that the complainant visited the showroom of OP No. 1 and purchased two tyres from OP No. 2 make Goodyear vide Invoice/Bill No. 376 dated 4.7.2012. It was having one year warranty, however, the complainant was highly surprised that after about 1-2 months of using the tyres, they started losing their shape 3 FIRST APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2014 and got distended/bloated and the vehicle started misalignment and was creating so many problems. The complainant made several visits to the office of OP No. 1 and pointed out the defects of the tyres and requested the OPs to replace the tyres in question being in warranty period. However, Op No. 1 had been putting of the matter with one pretext or the other and ultimately, denied to replace the same, which amounted to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Op No. 2 is the manufacturer of the tyres. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the OPs to replace the tyres and also pay the compensation and litigation expenses.
3. The claim was contested by the Ops. Op No. 1 in its reply took the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum; complainant had not come to the Forum with clean hands and had suppressed the material facts; there was no defect in the tyres and in case it was so, it was due to the faults of the complainant while plying the vehicle; for want of wheel-balancing or alignment. This OPs was just a Dealer and in case there was any manufacturing defect, it is for Op No. 2 to pay the same; there was no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on the part of this Op; the complainant was stopped by his act and conduct to file this complaint and had no locus-standi to file the complaint. On merits, the averments in the preliminary objections were reiterated and it was submitted that the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed as there was no deficiency in services on the part of this Op.
4FIRST APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2014
4. OP No. 2 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that OP No. 2 was engaged in manufacturing and distribution of tyre and tubes. On receipt of the complaint, as a matter of goodwill gesture and reputation, OP No. 2 deputed one of its Engineer to inspect the Tyres. On thorough inspection dated 16.10.2013, he observed as under:-
"RR Tyre adjusted on pro-rata @ 50% and RL tyre adjusted on 38% on pro-rata goodwill basis under warranty policy."
The said Engineer had fully examined and has rightly suggested to replace the tyres on pro-rata basis to which the complainant had refused. Whereas the parties were/are governed by warranty policy. OP No. 2 had performed its part of the duty by examining the tyres. Therefore, there was no deficiency in services on the part of this Op and consumer complaint was not maintainable against them. On merits also, the averments as stated in the preliminary objections were reiterated. It was further reiterated that there was no unfair trade practice on the part of this Op. Complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.
5. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
6. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, inspection report Ex. C-2. On the other hand, OP No. 2 had tendered into evidence affidavit of R.K. Gupta Ex. Op-2/1, spot inspection report Ex. Op-2/2. 5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2014
7. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written replies filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was accepted as referred above.
8. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OP No.2 has filed the present appeal.
9. Notice was given to the OPs but none had appeared. The respondents were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.1.2015.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
11. In the appeal, it was contended by the counsel for the appellant that appellant/OP No. 2 is the manufacturer and on receipt of the complaint, Engineer was deputed, who had inspected the tyres and had given his report Ex. C-2 and OP No. 2 was ready to replace the tyres as per the report of the Engineer but the learned District Forum did not consider that report and ordered for the replacement of the tyre without pro-rata basis, to that extent the order so passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
12. Two tyres manufactured by Op No. 2 were purchased by the complainant from Op No. 1 on 4.7.2012. As per the allegations in the complaint after 1/2 months of its purchase, the tyres started losing their shape and also got distended/bloated. Complaint was lodged with Op No. 1 but he put of the matter with one excuse or the other and ultimately, the tyres were examined by the Engineer of OP No. 2 on 16.10.2013, after a gap of more than one year. As per the report, he has recommended for tyre adjustment on pro-rata basis on 50% on RR Tyre and 38% on RL tyres as per the warranty policy. Therefore, whatever the Engineer has recommended, it is on the 6 FIRST APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2014 basis of warranty policy. The specific clause of the warranty has not been reproduced in the written reply by OP No. 2. No warranty clauses have been produced on the record by Op No. 2. They have just placed on the record affidavit of Mr. R.K. Gupta Ex. OP-2/1 and spot inspection report Ex. Op-2/2, therefore, without going through those warranty clauses and bringing it on the record, we cannot say that the spot inspection report given by their Engineer was on the basis of warranty terms and what is the basis to go for pro-rata basis 50% for one tyre and 38% for other tyres. Otherwise Op No. 1 had taken the plea in their written reply that damage to the tyre was due to the fault of the complainant himself for want of wheel-balancing and wheel alignment. But the spot inspection by Engineer of OP No. 2 does not indicate that damage to the tyre was on account of proper wheel alignment and wheel balancing, therefore, the plea by OP No. 1 is not corroborated on the basis of any evidence on the record. In case there is a manufacturing defect in the tyres during the warranty period then certainly, OP No. 2 being manufacturer is required to replace the same. Therefore, the order so passed by the learned District Forum is a correct order. We affirm the findings so given by the District Forum.
13. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 4,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 4,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand 7 FIRST APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2014 draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
15. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
16. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 8.5.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member May 20, 2015. (Surinder Pal Kaur) as Member