State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Ajakson Leather Pvt. Ltd vs 1. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd on 11 September, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 8 of 2012 Date of Institution : 18.01.2012 Date of Decision : 11.09.2012 M/s Ajakson Leather Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office H.No.61, Sector 2, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director Sh. Kanwalbir Singh Sra. complainant V e r s u s 1. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd., Office at plot no.E-3, Chakan Industrial Area, Chakan, Pune-410501, through its Chief Managing Director 2. Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Area, Phase II, Show Room No.41, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director. .... Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
Argued by:
Sh. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.
M.S. Pandit, Advocate alongwith Sh. S.S. Bawa, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.
Sh.
Rajesh Verma, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2 PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, on 10.01.2011, for the personal use of its Managing Director, purchased Mercedes Benz Car W212/E350CDI, (hereinafter to be referred as vehicle), bearing chassis no.WDD2120256L012298 and Engine No.64285040964971, vide tax invoice No.CHD-0292, Annexure C-1, for a sum of Rs.48,00,000/-, from Opposite Party No.2, which is the authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1. Copies of Form No.21 Annexure C-2 and Form No.22 Annexure C-3 dated 10.01.2011, were also supplied to the complainant. The vehicle, in question, was got registered with the Registering Authority, Chandigarh, and it was allotted registration No.CH01-AG-0048. At the time of sale of the vehicle, in question, two years warranty, plus one year extended warranty, was also given, by the Opposite Parties.
2. It was stated that during the use of the vehicle, the rear tyres of the same were getting unevenly worn out. On 14.11.2011, the Managing Director of the complainant, went to Opposite Party No.2, with this problem, and he was told, after alignment check, that front wheels were alright, and the rear wheels alignment (camber) parameter was within the permissible limits. Copy of the report dated 14.11.2011, in respect of the same, is Annexure C-5. It was further stated that the tyres used in the said vehicle were of the Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Limited Company. The Service Engineer of the Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Limited, was called to inspect the vehicle, to know about the actual defect and the root cause of uneven wearing out of the rear tyres. In his report dated 14.11.2011, the Service Engineer of the Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Limited, mentioned that uneven wearing of the tyres was due to the problem of improper alignment of the rear wheels.
3. On 14.12.2011, the Managing Director of the complainant, again got the wheel alignment carried out, from Opposite Party No.2, and paid a sum of Rs.2000/-, on this account. On 16.12.2011, the rear side tyres of the vehicle were changed, because of the early and excessive wear out, when the vehicle had covered only 14053 kms, whereas, the tyre manufacturer claimed that the average tyre was to last for 35,000 to 40,000 kms. It was further stated that the complainant had to pay Rs.31,500/-, for the replacement of rear tyres, at a pre-mature stage, because of inbuilt defect of improper alignment of wheels of the vehicle. The complainant sent email and SMS to the Opposite Parties, a number of times, complaining about the problems aforesaid, but nothing was done in that regard. A legal notice dated 24.12.2011, was also served upon the Opposite Parties, but no response was received.
4. On 27.12.2011, the Managing Director of the complainant was assured by Opposite Party No.1, as per telephonic conversation, that they were looking into the technical problem, but nothing had been done, till the filing of the complaint. It was further stated that the problem of excessive wearing out of rear tyres of the vehicle, was basically an inherent manufacturing defect. It was further stated that the complainant, was, thus, supplied the vehicle, in question, with inbuilt manufacturing defect. It was further stated that the vehicle was being used by the Managing Director of the complainant, with utmost care, and had not met with any accident, from the date of its purchase. It was further stated that the Managing Director of the complainant was facing the problem of unusual sound of dragging of rear tyres, in the said vehicle, from the very beginning of the purchase of the same. It was further stated that even after spending a huge amount for the purchase of the said vehicle, the same was giving troubles, from the very beginning, as the same was neither safe nor roadworthy.
5. It was further stated that all these defects, occurred in the vehicle, during the warranty period. It was further stated that since the vehicle suffered inherent manufacturing defects, the Opposite Parties were completely deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. It was further stated that, on account of non -serious attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Managing Director of the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), for directions to the Opposite Parties, to replace the vehicle, with a new one, or in the alternative refund the price thereof, plus Rs.31,500/-, being the price of rear tyres, got replaced by it, at its own cost, alongwith the cost of inspection and other charges; pay compensation on account of deficiency, in rendering service, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/; pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the Managing Director of the complainant, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-; and pay Rs.15,000/-, as litigation costs.
6. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, pleaded that since the vehicle, in question, was purchased by the complainant, which is a Private limited Company, for commercial purpose, it did not fall within the definition of a consumer. It was further pleaded that Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2, are two distinct entities. It was admitted that the vehicle, in question, was purchased by the complainant, from Opposite Party No.2, its authorized dealer. It was also admitted that the warranty, as claimed by the complainant, was given by the Opposite Parties. It was stated that the issue raised by the complainant, with regard to wearing out of the rear tyres, was thoroughly examined by the Service Engineer of the Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Limited, the tyre manufacturer/supplier, and it was observed by the Engineer aforesaid, that irregular wearing out of the tyres was usage related. It was further stated that the tyre supplier had advised wheel alignment. It was further stated that the wheel alignment was done by Opposite Party No.2, and the rear tyres were got replaced, by the complainant, as the same were worn out. It was further stated that the tyres were being manufactured by the aforesaid Company, and were internationally known for their quality. It was further stated that, rough usage of the vehicle, was a reason of wear and tear of the tyres. It was further stated that, as per the warranty terms and conditions, Opposite Party No.1, was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant, towards any consequential loss, or damage, in respect of the vehicle, purchased by it. It was further stated that, according to the terms and conditions of the warranty, no damages were liable to be paid by Opposite Party No.1, to the owner of the vehicle, if any damage had been caused to the same, on account of misuse, improper operation/storage/ improper maintenance or repairs etc. etc. It was further stated that since the wear and tear of the rear tyres was usage related, it could not be said to be an inherent manufacturing defect, in the vehicle. It was further stated that the complaint, filed by the complainant, was only speculative. It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
7. Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, pleaded that since the vehicle, in question, was purchased by the complainant, which is a Private limited Company, for commercial purpose, it did not fall within the definition of a consumer, and, as such, this Commission had no Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the same. It was stated that the relevant claim of the complainant, fell outside the provision of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and, as such, the complaint was not maintainable. It was further stated that the complaint, involved complicated questions of law and fact, and, as such, this Commission had no Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the same. It was admitted that the vehicle, in question, bearing chassis no.WDD2120256L012298 and Engine No.64285040964971, vide tax invoice No.CHD-0292, Annexure C-1, for Rs.48,00,000/-, was purchased by the complainant, from it (Opposite Party No.2), which is the authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that the tyres fitted in the vehicle, aforesaid, were manufactured by the Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Limited, a Company of repute. It was also admitted that wear and tear of the rear tyres was usage related, and, as such, the same did not fall within the terms and conditions of the warranty. It was also admitted that the vehicle was reported for checking of tyres, when the same was attended to, efficiently vide Annexure C-5, and the Managing Director of the complainant was conveyed, that front wheels were alright, and the rear wheels alignment (camber) parameter was within the permissible limits. It was further stated that the tyres were got inspected by the Service Engineer of the Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd. It was further stated that the case of the complainant, pertained to normal wear out of the tyres, and did not suffer from any inherent manufacturing defect. It was further stated that misalignment of the vehicle, could occur, at any time, as it depended upon the driving style of the same and condition of the roads. It was further stated that the report of the Service Engineer of the Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., did not mention, that tyres had been worn out, due to misalignment of the vehicle. It was further stated that wearing out of the tyres could also occur, due to high pressure of the same, rough usage etc etc. It was further stated that the vehicle had already covered over 14000 kms, when the problem regarding wearing out of the tyres, was noticed by the complainant. It was further stated that since the vehicle did not suffer from any inherent manufacturing defects, the complainant was not entitled to the reliefs, claimed by it. It was further stated that even the Opposite Parties were not liable to pay a sum of Rs.31,500/-, spent by the complainant, for the replacement of tyres, on account of wear and tear, due to normal usage. It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
8. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the complainant, submitted that the mere fact, that the vehicle was taken to the Service Centre of Opposite Party No.2, again and again, within a short span of about 10 months, for rectification of defects, in itself, was sufficient to prove that it suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. He further submitted that had the vehicle been not suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect, then, within the short span of time of its purchase, the complainant would not have been compelled to take the same to the Service Centre/Workshop, of Opposite Party No.2, for attending to the defects therein. He further submitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle, in question, by paying a huge price, for the purpose of personal use of its Managing Director, but he (Managing Director), could not enjoy the ride therein, due to wearing out of the rear types, misalignment of wheels etc. etc. He further submitted that since the facts aforesaid, speak for themselves, with regard to the inherent manufacturing defects, in the vehicle, and, under these circumstances, non-production of expert evidence, did not disprove the case of the complainant. He further submitted that, as such, the Opposite Parties, were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.
11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, submitted that the vehicle, in question, was purchased by the complainant, on 10.01.2011, vide Invoice Annexure C-1, for a sum of Rs.48 lacs. They further submitted that for the first time, the vehicle was brought to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, on 14.11.2011, when its odometer reading was 14053 kms, when wearing out of the rear tyres was reported. Annexure C-5, is the Chassis Alignment Test Sheet. They further submitted that the vehicle was got examined, from the Engineer of the Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., and the said Engineer gave his report, that uneven wearing of the tyres was caused due to the problem of improper rear wheel alignment. They further submitted that the misalignment of the vehicle, could be due to rough usage of the same, pressure of the tyres and condition of the roads, on which the same is driven. They further submitted that the delivery of the vehicle was made to the complainant, after checking the same, by the authorized Representative of the complainant, on 14.12.2011, and he recorded his satisfaction note Annexure C. They further submitted that, no expert evidence, was submitted by the complainant, to prove that the vehicle, in question, was suffering from any inherent manufacturing defects. They further submitted that whatever defects were pointed out, were attended to, from time to time. They further submitted that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.
12. The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the vehicle, in question, suffered from inherent manufacturing defects or not. It may be stated here, that to establish the claim, for the replacement of the vehicle, or refund of the price thereof, the complainant was required to prove through cogent, convincing and adequate evidence, supported by the opinion of an automobile expert/mechanical engineer, that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. In our opinion, the report of the automobile expert/mechanical engineer, in such cases, was eminently essential, so as to enable this Commission, to come to the conclusion, as to what were the defects, persisting in the vehicle, within the short span of the purchase of the same, and, whether those defects were actually inherent manufacturing defects, or only minor defects, which were the result of normal wear and tear, improper maintenance of the vehicle or extensive use, thereof, and could be easily rectified. In Jose Philip Mampilli Vs. Premier Automobiles Ltd., & another 2004 (1) CPC 438 (S.C.) and Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr. (JT 2006 (4) SC 113), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the manufacturer could not be ordered to replace the car or refund its price, merely because some defects appear, which could be rectified or defective parts could be replaced, under warranty. Similar principle of law, was laid down in Chandeshwar Kumar Vs. Tata Engineering Loco Motive Co. Ltd. & Anr., I (2007) CPJ 2 (NC), M/s E.I.D. Parry (India Ltd.) Vs. Baby Benjamin Thushara, I (1992) CPJ 279 (NC), a case decided by a Four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad & Ors. III (2010) CPJ 130 (NC)
13. Keeping in view the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, now let us see, whether, in the instant case, the complainant was successful, in proving that the vehicle, in question, suffered from inherent manufacturing defects or not. Admittedly, no report of automobile expert/mechanical engineer, was produced, on record, by the complainant, to prove that the vehicle was found to be suffering from inherent manufacturing defects. As stated above, for the first time, after the purchase of the vehicle, the complainant took the same, to the Service Centre of Opposite Party No.2, on 14.11.2011, when its odometer reading was 14053kms. A complaint, with regard to wearing out of the rear tyres of the vehicle, in question, was made. Annexure C-5 is the Chassis Alignment Test Sheet, submitted by the Service Engineer of the Opposite Parties. The Engineer of the Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., also inspected the vehicle, and he gave his report Annexure C-6 as under:-
Position: Overall circumference of tyre tread area on NON DOT side.
Symptoms: Slopped wear or feather wear.
Cause: Uneven wear caused due to problem of improper vehicle alignment
14. Against the Column of Irregular wear, he recorded usage wear. Ultimately, the Engineer of the Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., gave his report Annexure C-6 dated 14.11.2011. Since, the Engineer came to the conclusion that uneven wear out of the tyres, was caused due to the problem of improper wheel alignment, it could not, by any stretch of imagination be said, that such a defect, could be an inherent manufacturing defect, in the same. When Mr. Mahendra Singh, the authorized representative of the complainant, took delivery of the vehicle on 14.12.2011, he gave his satisfactory note Annexure C. No doubt, it is evident, from Annexure C-7, that the complainant got replaced two rear tyres of the vehicle, for a sum of Rs.31,500/-. The defect of improper alignment, no doubt, occurred during the warranty period, which according to the complainant, still continues. No other job sheet was produced on record, to prove that after 14.11.2011, the complainant went to the Workshop/Service Centre of Opposite Party No.2, for removal of any defects. As stated above, the improper alignment, may be due to so many factors i.e. bad driving habits, condition of the roads, on which the vehicle was driven; extensive usage of the vehicle, etc etc. In the absence of any expert evidence of an automobile expert, having been produced by the complainant, as stated above, it miserably failed to prove that the vehicle, suffered from any inherent manufacturing defect, and, as such, it either required replacement, or refund of the price of the same.
15. The next question ,that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the directions can be given to the Opposite Parties, for rectification of the aforesaid minor defects, existing in the vehicle, as pointed out by the complainant, and replacement of defective parts, free of cost, and extension of warranty or not. In Jose Philip Mampilli`s and Maruti Udyog Ltd.`s cases (supra), the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that where the defects, in various parts of the car, are established, replacement of the entire car or refund of price, was not called for, but direction could be given, for rectification of the defects and replacement of defective parts. Since the defects, referred to above, occurred in the vehicle, during the period of warranty, and were even persisting, till the date of filing of the complaint, as per the version of the complainant, keeping in view the principle of law, laid down, in the cases, referred to, in this paragraph, such directions can certainly be given to the Opposite Parties.
16. The next question, that falls, for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to the refund of price of the tyres, to the tune of Rs.31,500/-, as depicted in Annexure C-7, which he got replaced, on account of wearing of the same, due to improper alignment, when the odometer reading of the vehicle was about 15000 kms. It may be stated here, that the complainant is certainly entitled to the refund of the same. Since, wearing out of the rear tyres, had occurred, on account of improper alignment during warranty i.e. only in about 10 months, after the purchase of the vehicle, the Opposite Parties were liable to pay the amount of Rs.31,500/-, spent by the complainant, on the replacement of the same.
17. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
18. For the reasons, recorded above, the complaint, is partly accepted, against the Opposite Parties, with costs, in the following manner:-
i. The complainant shall, through its authorized representative, take the vehicle to the Service Centre of the Opposite Parties, within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
ii. The Opposite Parties shall take over the vehicle, on production, repair the same and replace the defective parts thereof, under the supervision of their panel of experts, without charging anything, from the complainant, within 30 days, from the date of production of the same by it, and, thereafter, hand over the same to its duly authorized representative.
iii. The concerned experts, shall submit their affidavits, immediately, thereafter, to this Commission, duly signed by them, that the defects had been rectified/defective parts replaced, and the vehicle had been made roadworthy.
iv. The Opposite Parties shall also give extended warranty of two years, (which will commence after the expiry of original warranty of 24 months, as also the extended warranty of one year), containing the same terms and conditions, as are mentioned in the original warranty.
v. The Opposite Parties shall also pay a sum of Rs.31,500/-, spent by the complainant, to it, for the replacement of tyres, aforesaid, during the warranty period, as depicted in Annexure C-7.
vi. The Opposite Parties, shall also pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, to the complainant.
vii. The amount of Rs.31,500/-, shall be paid by the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the same, alongwith interest @9% P.A., from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs.
19. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
20. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
September 11, 2012 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg STATE COMMISSION (Complaint Case No.8 of 2012) Present: Sh. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the applicant/complainant.
Sh.
M.S. Pandit, Advocate alongwith Sh. S.S. Bawa, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.
Sh.
Rajesh Verma, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2 Dated the 11th day of September 2012 ORDER This application under Section 151 CPC, for placing on record, the expert opinion Surveyor report (Annexure C-9), has been filed by the complainant, on the ground, that the same is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, in dispute.
2. Reply to the application, was filed by Opposite Party No.1, stating therein that Mr. Jaspreet Singh Mehta, whose report has been submitted, alongwith the application, could not be said to be an expert, to opine on the most advanced technology of Mercedes-Benz car. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, had already filed the written reply and evidence, by way of affidavit, to the effect that the car did not suffer from any inherent manufacturing defect(s). It was further stated that, in case, the vehicle was to be sent, it should be sent to the Automotive Research Association of India (A.R.A.I.), Pune, Maharashtra or Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (V.R.D.E.), Ahmednagar, Maharashtra.
3. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record, carefully.
4. On 05.07.2012, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, filed detailed affidavits, by way of evidence, which were taken on record. An application for impleading M/s Michelin India Tyre Pvt. Ltd., as a party to the complaint, was also moved by Opposite Party No.1, and the complaint was adjourned to 26.07.2012, for reply to the said application, and arguments on the same, as also in the main complaint. In case, the complainant wanted to produce, on record, the report of the expert, it was required of it, to produce the same, alongwith the affidavit of the expert, when the complaint was fixed for its evidence. As soon as he filed the complaint, he could also move an application, alongwith the same, that the Commission may appoint an expert, or send the vehicle to the authorized laboratory, for the purpose of inspection of the same, to find out, as to whether, the same suffered from inherent manufacturing defect, or not. It, however, did not do so at the relevant time. The perusal of the averments, contained in the complaint, clearly goes to reveal that the main complaint of the complainant was that, there was unusual wearing out of the rear tyres. Ultimately, the Service Engineer of M/s Michelin India Tyre Pvt. Ltd., manufacturer/supplier of tyres, which were provided to the vehicle, in question, examined the same, and gave his report Annexure C-6, to the effect that wearing out of the rear tyres was on account of improper alignment, and usage related. Such an inspection was conducted by the Service Engineer of M/s Michelin India Tyre Pvt. Ltd., in the presence of the representative of the complainant, as also the Opposite Parties. The report of Mr. Jaspreet Singh Mehta, now sought to be placed, on record, is not supported by any affidavit. At this stage, therefore, no ground is made out, for allowing the application, for placing on record the report (Annexure C-9), of Mr.Jaspreet Singh Mehta. The application, thus, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
5. For the reason recorded above, the application filed by the complainant, for placing on record the report (Annexure C-9), of Mr.Jaspreet Singh Mehta, is dismissed.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free-of-cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT Rg STATE COMMISSION (Complaint Case No.8 of 2012) Present: Sh. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.
M.S. Pandit, Advocate alongwith Sh. S.S. Bawa, Advocate for the applicant/Opposite Party No.1.
Sh.
Rajesh Verma, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2 Dated the 11th day of September 2012 ORDER This application, has been filed by Opposite Party No.1, for impleading M/s Michelin India Tyre Pvt. Ltd., as a party to the complaint, on the averments, that the Service Engineer of the said Company, examined the vehicle, and observed that irregular wearing out of the tyres was usage related, and he advised wheel alignment. It was stated that, ultimately, the rear tyres were got replaced by the complainant, but, M/s Michelin India Tyre Pvt.
Ltd., rejected the request for free-of-charge replacement of the same, on the ground, that as per tyre inspection report, the tyres were damaged due to nature of use, and wheel alignment was advised. It was further stated that impleadment of M/s Michelin India Tyre Pvt. Ltd., as a party to the complaint, is essential for the just and effective decision of the complaint.
2. No reply, was filed by the complainant. However, the Counsel for the complainant submitted that he had no objection, in case, the application aforesaid, was allowed.
3. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record, carefully.
4. The complaint, in question, was filed on 18.01.2012. Written reply alongwith evidence, was filed by Opposite Party No.1, on 19.04.2012. Alongwith the same, certain documents were also placed on record. Opposite Party No.1, was very much in possession of the report of the Service Engineer of M/s Michelin India Tyre Pvt. Ltd., who inspected the vehicle, in question, on 14.11.2011. Opposite Party No.1, did not move the application for impleading M/s Michelin India Tyre Pvt. Ltd., as a party to the complaint, at the time of filing the reply and affidavit, by way of evidence, on 19.04.2012. The application, under disposal, was moved on 05.07.2012. No doubt, the Counsel for the complainant, did not have any objection to the impleadment of M/s Michelin India Tyre Pvt. Ltd., as a party to the complaint, yet, this Commission is not bound by such a statement, made by him. According to the provisions of Section 13(3A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, made applicable to the disputes before the Commission, by virtue of Section 18 of the Act, a complaint filed under the Act, is required to be decided, within three months, from the date of appearance of the Opposite Party(s). In case, at this stage, the application for impleadment of M/s Michelin India Tyre Pvt. Ltd., as a party to the complaint, is allowed, that will delay the disposal of the same, thereby defeating the very purpose of the provisions of Section 13(3A), of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Even otherwise, the Service Engineer, aforesaid, in his report stated that irregular wearing out of the tyres was on account of improper alignment. He did not state that there was any defect, in the tyres. Under these circumstances, impleadment of M/s Michelin India Tyre Pvt. Ltd., as a party to the complaint, is not essential, for the just decision of this complaint. The application, thus, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the application filed by Opposite Party No.1, for impleading M/s Michelin India Tyre Pvt.
Ltd., as a party to the complaint, is dismissed.
6. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free-of-cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT Rg