Hemant Kashmiri son of Shri Rajinder Kashmiri, Resident of Kashmir House Main Bazar, Rampur Bushehar, H.P.

… Complainant
Versus

M/S Master Treads Kachi Ghati, Shimla through its

Proprietor Shri Abhay Kaushik, Joshi Bhawan Kachi Ghati, Shimla-171010.

…Opposite Party
O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he is owner of tipper bearing registration No.HP-06A-0278, while OP deals in re-treading of the tyres, and as such, the complainant handed over six tyres of different size and make as per invoice dated 22.03.2006 to the OP for re-treading. It is averred that he received back the tyres after re-treading and paid a sum of Rs.13,590/- to the OP.

It is averred that one of the re-treaded tyre bearing No.AY-4093487-L got burst within 20 days of its fitting and it is averred, that it was due to improper repair of the same. The OP was requested to do the needful, but to no avail. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-School and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP filed reply to the complaint. In the preliminary objections it was contended that the complaint is not maintainable and that there is no deficiency in service. On merits, it is denied that the tyre has not been repaired properly from the inner-cut and that it burst due to improper re-treading. It is contended that there was no fault on their part in re-treading the tyre and the tyre may have burst due to some other reason. It is denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part.

3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.

5. The OP in repudiating the claim of the complainant, have depended upon a warning contained in the invoice under which no guarantee was afforded by the OP to the purchaser qua the product purchased by the complainant from, the, OP developing defects.

The said warning contained in the invoice issued by the OP to the complainant, appears to be, a, merely preemptive devise on the part of the OP to stave off any challenge, to the defect in the goods erupting subsequent, to, their delivery to the complainant by the OP. The warning hence, is, a machination on the part of the OP to avert a warranty. As such, it has no value in exculpating the liability of the manufacturer in case any manufacturing defect had erupted in the goods, i.e. in one of the tyres which were delivered by the complainant to the OP, for, re-treading.

6. Having adverted to the effect of the warning contained in the invoice, now, we may advert to the report of the mechanical expert who has attributed the defect as had emanated or erupted in one of the tyres delivered by the complainant to the OP, to, improper curing of the puncture/hole in the centre of the tyre during the process of re-treading of the said tyre. The report of the expert has not been at all attempted to be assailed, hence, its findings acquire conclusiveness.

7. As a sequel with the report squarely attributing the defect which had erupted in one of the tyres delivered by the complainant to the OP for re-treading, to, a shortcoming or imperfect workmanship in either the machinery or on the part of the skilled manpower engaged by the OP to do the needful, the, consequence of attribution in the report of the expert to such faults or imperfections on the part of the OP, in, our view, comprises, a, deficiency in service.

8. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed. The OP is directed to re-tread the defective tyre within a period of one month after the said defective tyre is handed over to it, by the complainant. The complainant is directed to hand over the defective tyre to the OP within a period of fifteen days after the date of receipt of copy of this order.