BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.449 of 2015

Date of Instt. 15.10.2015

Date of Decision: 18.03.2019

Sukhdev Singh S/o Harbans Singh R/o Village Ghastipura, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Apollo Tyres Ltd., Chowk Hasina, Opposite Indian Oil Depot, G. T. Road, Bye Pass, Jalandhar Through their Officer Incharge/Authorized Officer.

2. Naveen Saxena, CO Apollo Tyres Ltd, SCF 233, Motor Market, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

3. Apollo Tyres Ltd., Apollo House, 7 Institutional Area, Sector 32, Gurgaon, Pin Code: 122001, India Through their Officer Incharge/Authorized Officer.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. K. C. Malhotra, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

OPs No.1 to 3 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint, wherein alleged that he is law abiding citizen derives his livelihood by means of self-employment through truck owned by him for transportation. The complainant purchased a chassis of truck 3118 of 12 tyres from the OP No.1 on 31.10.2014. The front four tyres of Apollo was purchased from OP No.1 for price Rs.20,000/- for vehicle registration No.PB06V4775. At the time of purchase of the tyre, it was assured that Apollo Tyre sold is one of the best tyre defect-free with longevity and safe-driving for all types of road and whether condition and can be used without any fear and peril. It was further assured that normally and ordinarily, Apollo Tyres runs about 5 lacs kilo-meters. The tyres also carries warranty for replacement and refund of price for any kind of defect and the same is replaced or its price is refunded without any rancor.

2. That front tyre purchased by the complainant when run only 40,000 KM started giving trouble while driving. Due to manufacturing defect and inferior quality, it had lost its strength which was noticed by the complainant on 25.06.2015. Resultantly, there is risk of damage to the vehicle and loss to Human Life and was not safe for driving. Since the tyres were within warranty period, so the complainant on 30.07.2015 made complaint to the OP No.2 and brought the defects occurred in the tyres to OP No.2 and requested to its replacement. On the same day, Nitin Saxena, Official Representative of OP No.2 submitted a report with the observation that the tyre in dispute has a cut on side valve. So, the claim of replacement of the tyre was rejected by the OP No.2, vide its report dated 30.07.2015 PIR No.18723. That rejection of genuine and bonafide claim within a warranty period was erroneous and perverse, arbitrary and malafide. Whenever there is a cut on the tyre, the tyre lost its strength and existence due to inferior quality and manufacturing defects. The report for rejection of the claim for replacement cannot be put to trust as acceptable since it is table made and biased report to exonerate OPs. The rejection of the claim of the complainant is illegal, unilateral and unethical on a flimsy ground, unjust without any rhyme and reason, unfair founded on conjecture and surmises. The defect occurred due to manufacturing defect and inferior quality of tyre and as such, the OPs are responsible for the defect that occurred to the tyre and are liable for the same. The complainant has been running from pillar to post for replacement of the tyre or refund of the price to OPs, but of no avail and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace defective Tyre with new defect free with a warranty to the complainant or in the alternative refund the price of the Tyre along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase till actual payment and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, all the OPs appeared and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the vehicle in question is being run for commercial purpose for transport business with the help of a paid driver and helper. Thus, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable being the truck is used for commercial purpose. It is further averred that the instant complaint of the complainant is not maintainable because the alleged Tyre was inspected by the technical person of the company and no manufacturing defect was found. It is further alleged that the instant complaint is filed by the complainant with ulterior motive to extract undue benefit from the OPs. On merits, the purchase of the Tyres including the defective Tyre is not denied, but it is denied that no insurance/warranty for running of Tyre 5 Lac KM have been ever given, even no Tyre Company in the world can give warranty for 5 Lac KM. The complainant is making such false statement only to mis-guide the Forum. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. Thereafter, the OPs No.1 to 3 did not come present and ultimately, all the OPs were proceeded against exparte on 02.01.2017 and thereafter, the complainant led oral evidence, wherein the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C1- to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also scanned the file and find that the purchase of the Tyre from the OP is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that some defect was occurred in one Tyre and the same was inspected by the mechanic of the OP and he submitted his report which is placed on the file by the complainant himself as Ex.C-1. Before discussing the aforesaid report of the mechanic, we like to reiterate the facts of the complaint, wherein complainant alleged that the OP gave assurance to the complainant for normally and ordinarily Apollo Tyre runs about 5 Lac KM and further alleged that the Tyre while within warranty period got some defect therein, in order to prove the Tyres are in warranty period, the complainant has to bring on the file warranty card, which had been supplied to the complainant by the OP at the time of purchase of the Tyre, but no guarantee/warranty card has been produced on the file by the complainant. Though we admitted that the Tyres are in warranty period being reason the OP has not denied this fact, but further it is the duty of the complainant to establish on the file that an assurance was given by the OP to the complainant that the Apollo Tyres run about 5 Lac KM, but no such type of evidence brought on the file by the complainant and even this fact has not been admitted by the OP rather the OP has categorically denied and took a plea that no Tyre Company in the world can give warranty for 5 Lac KM. This aspect of the OP is seem to be a true one because the mileage warranty is only upto 50,000 or maximum 1,00,000 not a 5,00,000. In order to prove that 5 Lac KM warranty for mileage has been given by the OP, the complainant has to bring on the file any document, but there is no such like document and further it is admitted by the complainant himself in Para No.3 of the complaint that the Tyre when run only 40,000 KM started giving trouble and this fact is admitted by the mechanic of the OP, who inspected the tyreS of the vehicle in question and submitted his report, which is Ex.C-1 and in the report Ex.C-1, it is clearly mentioned that there is tyre cut on side valve. So, it means the defect occurred in the tyre is due to running a truck on bad roads and it cannot be assumed as a manufacturing defect. It is worthwhile to mention here that if virtually there is any manufacturing defect, then duty casted upon the complainant to prove and establish independently that there is a any manufacturing defect by examining any expert, who inspected the Tyre, but no such type of evidence came on the file and under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no manufacturing defect in the Tyre rather the Tyre has already run 40,000 KM and the cut occurred in the Tyre is due to bad roads and thus, we do not find any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, therefore no substantive ground has been find in the case of the complainant, therefore, the complaint of the complainant fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

6. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

18.03.2019 Member President