Gursewak Singh s/o S. Kuldeep Singh r/o village Meharbaan, Walia Palace, Rahon Road, Distt. Ludhiana.
….Complainant.
Versus

1- M/s Tej Tyre Company, opp. Preet Palace, Link Road, Ludhiana through its Authorized Signatory.
2- M/s J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd., Ludhiana Depot 13-14, Transport Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.
3- M/s Hindustan Agencies, H-20, New Market, opp. Railway Station, Ludhiana, 141 003 through its Manager.

….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:
Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Present: Sh. J.S. Jagdev Adv. for complainant.
Ms Anju Sodhi Adv. opposite parties no.1 & 3.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1- On 9.11.2006, complainant purchased three tyres from opposite party no.1, manufactured by opposite party no.2, for Rs.6100/- vide invoice no.1959. Opposite party had boasted the tyre of extreme good quality with full guarantee against any defect. But one of the tyres turned out due to having manufacturing defect. That defective tyre was taken to opposite party no.1, who opened the tyre and in the process, wire of the tyre broke down. The opposite party refused to replace the tyre and claimed that it was not manufacturing defect. Such refusal of opposite party was wrong, against facts. Because the tyre had manufacturing defect, which caused tension, harassment to complainant. Consequently, this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for refund of price of the defective tyre Rs.2033/- alongwith interest and compensation of Rs.10000/-.


2- Opposite party no.1 & 3 in joint reply, claimed that the complainant has no locus standi to institute the complaint. Opposite party no.1 is simply a retailer and opposite party no.3 having agency of J.K. Tyre, manufactured by opposite party no.2. Only opposite party no.2 provides guantree against manufacturing defect in the tyre. Purchase of three tyres on 9.11.2006 by the complainant is admitted. Also conceded that later on, complainant brought one tyre having some trouble and insisted for its replacement. Replacement to be given by opposite party no.2. Hence, matter was reported to opposite party no.2 and defective tyre was also sent to them. The company opposite party no.2 after conducting laboratory tests, found that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. But it was damaged due to negligence of the complainant. Such defect developed due to fitment/mounting/demounting damages. Hence, company refused to give any guarantee, as company refused to replace the tyre, as it was not having any defect.


3- Opposite party no.2 did not contest the complaint and as such, is being proceeded against exparte.


4- Contesting parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.


5- It is undisputed as well as stands established that complainant vide invoice dated 9.11.2006 for Rs.6100/- Ex.C1, purchased three tyres from opposite party no.1, which were manufactured by opposite party no.2. Also conceded by contesting opposite parties no.1 & 3 that complainant had brought after some time, one of the tyres, claiming having manufacturing defect. They sent the tyre to opposite party no.2, manufacturing company.


6- Opposite party no.2 rejected claim vide their communication Ex.1/3D, addressed to their distributor opposite party no.3. It is reported in that communication dated 25.9.2007 that the tyre in question was examined on 28.9.2007 by their service engineer. They noticed that failure of the tyre was not due to manufacturing defect, but it failed due to fitment/mounting/demounting damages.


7- To prove this aspect that there was no manufacturing defect, in support of letter Ex.1/3D, no service engineer of the company, has been brought on record. We have nothing who was service engineer, who tested the tyre. But it is proved that complainant had brought defective tyre to opposite party no.1, who consequently sent it to the company for further action.


8- Complainant has placed on record, photographs Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 of the damaged tyre. As per affidavit Ex.1/3 of Sh. Hardeep Kumar of opposite party n.1, complainant brought the tyre with some trouble insisting for replacement, which was manufactured by opposite party no.2. Hence, the tyre was sent to opposite party no.2.



9- Complainant in support of his allegations that the tyre had manufacturing defect, filed his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A and also relied on affidavit Ex.CW2/A of Sh. Vinod Verma, proprietor of M/s Dashmesh Tyres Store. He says that on 22.8.2007, complainant came to his shop with punctured tyre. He inspected the same and found manufactured by J.K. Tyre Company. The tyre, according to him, had manufacturing defect, as wiring of the tyre had left the tyre. He advised the complainant to change the tyre and consequently, brought new tyre and got it changed. According to this expert narration, tyre had manufacturing defect.


10- In these circumstances, we have no reason to disbelieve the complainant qua his allegations that the tyre had manufacturing defect, as wire inside the tyre, had given way, which is the narration supported by expert witness. Whereas, defence of opposite party that tyre was not having manufacturing defect, is not supported by any material on the record.


11- As such, opposite party no.2 was guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice, as they had not replaced the tyre having manufacturing defect. Therefore, complaint allowed and opposite party no.2 is directed to refund price of the defective tyre, amounting to Rs.2033/- and also pay him compensation of Rs.1000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- within 45 days of receipt of copy of order.