State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Goodyear India Ltd. vs Charanjit Singh on 2 May, 2017
First Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.757 of 2015
Date of Institution : 13.07.2015
Date of Reserved : 19.04.2017
Date of Decision : 02.05.2017
Good Year India Ltd., Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad,
Haryana, PIN-121004, through its Managing Director/Principal
Officer, Ist Floor, ABW, Elegance Tower, Jasola Commercial
Complex, Behind Appollo Hospital, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110025
.
........Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Charanjit Singh, S/o Sh.Balcharan Singh Toor, R/o Village & Post
Office 557-L, Model Town, Jalandhar.
.......Respondent No.1/complainant
2. M/s.Wheel Care through its Proprietor Nehru Gandhi road,
Jalandhar City. ....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2
First Appeal against order dated
15.06.2015 passed by District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Sh.J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Vishal Satija, Advocate
For the respondents : Ms.Dhriti Sharma, Advocate
J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member:-
The appellant (OP No.1 in the original complaint before District Forum) has directed this appeal against order dated 15.06.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short the "District Forum"), directing OP No.1 to replace the tyre in question of the complainant in the original complaint (respondent No.1 in this 2 F. A. No. 757 of 2015 appeal) with new one, free of cost after receiving the old tyre from the complainant or in the alternative to refund its price of Rs.11,375/- to him, further to pay Rs.3,000/- for compensation and litigation expenses. Respondent No.1 of this appeal, is the complainant in the original complaint, before the District Forum Jalandhar, and respondent No.2 of this appeal is OP No.2 in the complaint and appellant of this appeal is OP No.1 therein and they be referred as such, hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, as arrayed in the original complaint.
2. Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in Short 'the Act') against OPs on the averments that he owned Mercedes Car E-250 and has been with experience of good driving skill for the last so many years. On inquiry, regarding best quality of tyres, OP No.2 apprised him to purchase Goodyear brand tyre for his car, as it is best quality of the tyres for the vehicle on the road. Complainant was convinced on the basis of assurance, given by OP No.2. He purchased four tyres, manufactured by OP No.1, having specification of tyres from OP No.2, vide cash invoice No.325 dated 04.08.2014 for the sum of Rs.45,500/- in his name. OP No.2 issued warranty card bearing registration No.015501, in respect of tyres, as purchased on 04.08.2014 on behalf of OP No.1. After the purchase of the tyres in question, one of the tyres developed manufacturing defect, which resulted in bubble in the tyre, endangering the life of the complainant, while driving and uncalled damage being caused to the vehicle of the complainant. Complainant approached OP No.2 and brought the manufacturing defect in the tyre to their notice immediately and it 3 F. A. No. 757 of 2015 assured him that the defective tyre in question would be replaced with new one after the permission of OP No.1. Complainant visited several times OP No.2 about the above defective tyre, OP No.2 instead of resolving the problem, rather advised him to lodge the complaint over toll free No.18002666767. Complainant lodged his complaint regarding defective tyre with customer care toll free No.18002666767 of OP No.1 on 22.10.2014, which complaint was registered on 10.11.2014. Thereafter complainant sent legal notice dated 20.11.2014 addressed to OP No.1 and OP No.2, vide registered post dated 20.11.2014, but to no effect. Complainant alleged manufacturing defect in the tyre and prayed for refund of the cost of damaged tyres, purchased by him, vide cash memo dated 04.08.2014, further compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation.
3. OP No.1 filed its written reply by raising preliminary objections that the complaint filed by him is not maintainable in law and on facts qua OP No.1, for the reasons stated herein below, which are set out independently and without prejudice to one another; OP No.1 is a limited company incorporated in India under the provisions of Companies Act, 1913. An existing Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad(Haryana) and has been engaged in manufacturing and distribution of automotive tyres, tubes and flaps throughout the globe. However, no cause of action has arisen qua the OPs in the instant complaint. On receipt of the complaint and as a matter of policy & process and reputation, which the OP enjoys globally, it deputed one of its Engineers to inspect the tyres alleged to 4 F. A. No. 757 of 2015 have become defective, in line with the 'Warranty Policy' & the 'Process for claiming warranty' of the company, which is a public document and displayed widely including even on the website of the company. The engineer of OP No.1 vide his spot inspection report dated 22.10.2014 found that damage to the sidewall ply cords was due to impact/bruise from external object. Such damage normally occurs, when tyre is driven over port holes/curbs/divider/bumps on roads at high speeds. Tyre did not suffer from any manufacturing defect, hence it is not covered under warranty according to the engineer's spot inspection report. The engineer had rightly refused the claim of the complainant. Had the tyre been suffering from any warrantable condition, if any, OP No.1 would have entertained the claim of the complainant and gladly replaced the tyres in terms of its warranty policy on prorata basis. It is not covered under any warranty and assurance. It was also averred that complainant has no locus- standi to file the complaint before the Consumer Forum, as the tyres were got examined by the Engineer of OP No.1 in the presence of the complainant and the complainant voluntarily and without any coercion signed the Spot Inspection Report dated 22.10.2014 . It was denied that tyres suffered from manufacturing defect. Complainant is not entitled to any amount, as prayed by him from OP No.1. OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 06.04.2015 passed by the District Forum.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A, and documents Ex.C-2 to E x.C-8 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of R.K.Gupta, Legal Manager 5 F. A. No. 757 of 2015 Ex.OP-1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant, as referred to above. Dissatisfied with the above order of District Forum Jalandhar, OP No.1 now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. Counsel for the appellant contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre and hence the complaint merits dismissal. It is further submitted that there is no expert examined by the complainant to prove any manufacturing defect in the tyre.
7. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant now respondent No.1 submitted that there was internal cut in the tyre, vide photographs Ex.C-7 on the record. The tyre was not damaged due to some external impact in this case. No external damage has been found in this case. The internal defect is on account of manufacturing defect in the tyre only.
8. We have examined the evidence on the record and heard the respective submissions of counsel for the parties. Ex.CA is affidavit of the complainant to the effect that there was internal cut in the tyre, which was due to manufacturing defect only. He further deposed that he purchased 3 tyres of Goodyear, manufactured by the OP No.1 from OP No.2, vide cash invoice No.325 dated 04.08.2014. The complainant purchased the tyre for Rs.11,375/-, vide Ex.C-1; Ex.C-2 is the warranty policy with terms and conditions. Legal Notice dated 20.11.2014 is Ex.C-3, and postal receipts are Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5. Copy of driving licence of Charanjit Singh Toor is Ex.C-6. Photograph of the 6 F. A. No. 757 of 2015 defective tyre is Ex.C-7 on the record. The retail invoice dated 18.12.2014 is Ex.C-8 on the file.
9. OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of R.K.Gupta, Manager(Legal). He denied any manufacturing defect in the tyre in question, as alleged. The warranty policy is Ex.OP-1 on the record, Ex.OP-2 is Spot Inspection Report; Ex.OP-3 is reply to the legal notice; Ex.OP-2 has been relied upon by OP no.1 in proving its case. It is stated that tyre did not suffer from any manufacturing defect. It is submitted by counsel for the respondent that there is no affidavit on the record of Kawaljit Singh in support of Spot Inspection Report Ex.OP-2 and it is not the original one and in addition to that, it is not signed by the complainant. Consequently, this document cannot be relied upon to hold that the tyre did not suffer from any inherent manufacturing defect in it. Ex.C-7 is the photograph, showing that there was internal cut in the tyre, which is not due to external impact. Had the tyre been affected from the external side, then we could have observed that tyre was damaged due to negligence of the complainant. OPs relied upon law laid down in Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr. reported in Vol.I (2010) CPJ 235(NC), it is not applicable to the facts of the case. The cited authority pertains to manufacturing defect in the vehicle and generally expert witness, who is automobile engineer, proves any such manufacturing defects therein. Similarly, law laid down in Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Sanju & Anr. in F.A.No.462 of 2015 decided on 29.02.2016 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana- Panchkula, has been considered and it is distinguishable from the facts of the case. In the cited authority, the complaint was filed on 7 F. A. No. 757 of 2015 trivial and insignificant matter. The District Forum observed that when the tyre was produced before it, during the arguments of the complaint, there was internal cut in it. This observation of District Forum goes a long way in proving the manufacturing defect in the trye. There is no question of internal cut in it, if it was not suffering from any manufacturing defect.
10. As a corollary of our above discussion, we affirm the order of the District Forum, as there is no illegality or perversity in the order of District Forum and resultantly the appeal stands dismissed.
11. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.7187.50 with this Commission and thereafter another sum of Rs.7188/- was also deposited as per the directions of this Commission. The registry is hereby directed to remit Rs.7187.50 + Rs.7188/- alongwith interest, which accrued thereon, if any, to the respondent No.1 being complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days period from the date of this order.
12. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.04.2017 and the order was reserved. The certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J.S. Klar) Presiding Judicial Member (Surinder Pal Kaur) Member May 02, 2017 Rupinder-2