Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/70

Sadiq Mohd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Khan Tyre Service & Other - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.K.Sharma,Adv.

23 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                      Consumer Complaint No. :  70 of 21.07.2015

                                      Date of decision                    :      23.09.2016

 

 

Sadiq Mohammad, son of Hakam Ali, resident of Village Singh Bhagwantpur, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, 

                                                        ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1.  Khan Tyres Services Kurali Road, Rupnagar through its Prop. Jagdish Mohd.

2. Anand Tyres BXXIII3060, Link Road Opp. Transport Nagar, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana 141003, through its Managing Director Dealer of respondent No.3

3.  Bridge Stone India Pvt. Ltd. Branch At Plot No.12, Sherpur Chowk, Near Arun Gas Service, Street NPC, Tempo Union Ludhiana.

 

                                                                                   ....Opposite Parties

 

                                        Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

 

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. J.K. Sharma Advocate, counsel for the complainant

Sh. Jagdish Mohammd. Prop. For Opposite Party No.1

Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte

Sh. Vijay Kaushal, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party No.3

 

 

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

                   Sh. Sadiq Mohammad has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’)  praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To replace his tyres with the new one,  

ii)      To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him,

iii)     To pay Rs. 20,000/ as litigation costs,  

 

 

2.                         In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is plying a Tralla for earning his livelihood and he has no other source of income except earning from Tralla. On 3.3.2015, he purchased 4 tyres of Tralla from O.P. No.1 by paying Rs.84,500/-. At the time of purchase of the above said tyres, the O.P. No.1 gave two years guarantee and assured that in case any defect is found in the said tyres within two years, same would be replaced with the new one. After some days of purchase of the tyres, he saw some defect in the tyres as the tyres were inflated (hot air ballon), then immediately, he approached and requested the O.P. No.1 to replace the said defective tyres with the new one as per guarantee. The proprietor for O.P. No.1 took the defective tyres in his possession for sending the same to the O.Ps. No.2 & 3 and told him to come after 15 days. After 15 days, he again approached and requested to O.P. No.1 to give the new tyres in replacement, but OP No.1 kept prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other and during this period, he could not ply his Tralla and suffered huge financial loss. It was further stated that he again visited to O.P. No.1, then its proprietor told him that he has already sent the said tyres to the O.Ps. No.2 & 3 and told him to come after a week. After a week, in the month of July 2015, he again approached the O.P. No.1 to enquire about his tyres, O.P. No.1 told him that the O.Ps. No.2 & 3 have refused to replace the tyres with new one. Thereafter, he visited the office of O.Ps. No.2 & 3 personally but they also flatly refused to replace his tyres with new one, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Hence, this complaint.

3.               On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.1 filed written version stating therein that it is correct that complainant visited the shop for replacement of tyres and he was told to him that his tyres have already been sent to the O.Ps. No.2 and 3 for replacement. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, in the interest of justice.

4.                 The notice of the complaint was given to O.P. No.2, but due to non appearance, the O.P. No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.08.2015. 

5.                The O.P. No.3 has filed written version taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the O.P. No.3 has not received the tyres for claim from or on behalf of complainant. The documents which are produced by the complainant before this Forum clearly shows, the connivance of complainant and O.P. No.1; that the complainant never sent his tyres for claim to the O.P. No.3,  so he is not entitled for any claim or settlement; that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against the O.P. No.3; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint before this Forum as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  as he is running business of transport; that O.P. No.3 has filed a separate application for inspection of the tyres of the complainant from third party i.e. Government lab, for ascertaining the real cause of damage in the said tyres of the complainant inspected by the technical service engineer of O.P. No.3: that the complainant is not a Consumer as he has neither submitted any proof of purchase of the tyres from O.Ps. No. 2 & 3 nor submitted any tyre with the O.P. No.3 for inspection. On merits, it is stated that the O.P. No.1 is not authorized dealer of O.P. No.3. The documents which are produced by the complainant before this Ld. Court clearly shows, the connivance of complainant and O.P. No.1. The complainant never complaint about defects in his tyres to the O.P.  No.3. Moreover, the letter dated 14.7.2015, which is on the letter head of the O.P. No.2, produced by the complainant on the the record does not relate to complainant but it is related to Rupinder Singh. The O.P. No.3  never provides guarantee but only provides warranty, which is for three years and not for two years and settle the claim on pro-rata basis as per tread wear if there is manufacturing defect in the product of the company. Moreover the authorized dealers of the company issues warranty cards to the customers, by mentioning the date of sale of product and its serial number, but nothing has been mentioned in the compliant by the complainant regarding the said warranty card. It is further stated that the O.P. No.3 has not received tyres of the complainant either from O.P. No.1 or O.P. No.2 for inspection. It is correct that the O.P. No.2 is an authorized dealer of O.P. No.3. The O.P. No.3 is the manufacturer of tyres and sells its product in the the replacement market through its authorized distributors and dealers only to ensure that customers get genuine Bridgestone products and warranty. If the products are purchased from unauthorized seller then Bridgestone company do not provide any warranty. The ten inspection reports which are produced by complainant before this Ld. Forum have no concern with the tyres of complainant as inspection reports are in the name of Rupinder Singh Dahliwal of Dhaliwal Transport and according to the inspection reports attached here with by the complainant there is no manufacturing defect in tyres. So question of making replacement or claim does not arise at all. The O.P. No.3 is not liable to replace any tyre unless the technical engineer of the O.P. No.3 or engineer of the some external laboratory i.e. Government Laboratory after testing confirms manufacturing defect in the said tyre. Without such test, the complainant being not a technical expert cannot reach to conclusion that his tyres suffer from manufacturing defect. The real cause of damage in the tyres can only be determined by sending the same  to Government approved laboratory for the inspection as per Section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The O.P. No.3. i.e. Bridgestone is a world class tyre and tube manufacturer with world class manufacturing facilities, special care is taken and quality control checks are put in place while manufacturing the products. The Bridgestone tyres made in India are certified by Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT)for there road audited by Bureau of Indian Standards. The Products of O.P. No.3 are running successfully and bear a good reputation in the market.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with compensatory cost to the answering O.P.

6.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 and closed the evidence.  Sh. Jagdish Mohammad, Proprietor for O.P. No.1 has suffered a statement, which has been recorded separately, to the effect that he does not want to lead any evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Harjeet Singh, Engineer in Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd Ex.OP3/A, photocopies of documents Ex.OP3/B to Ex.OP3/C4 and closed the evidence.  

 

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, O.P. No.3 and Sh. Jagdish Mohammad, Proprietor of Khan Tyres for O.P. No.1 and gone through the record of the file, carefully.

 

8.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.3, raised the objection that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable against the O.P. No.3 because the reports of the ten tyres produced on record by the complainant as Ex.C5 to Ex.C14, in his evidence have no concern with the tyres of the complainant, as the same were sent for inspection by Sh. Rupinder Singh Dhaliwal Transport and complainant has never sent his tyres for testing/analysis to the O.P. No.3 and as such no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against the O.P. No.3. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on 03.03.2015, complainant purchased four tyres  of make Bridgestone for his Tralla, from the O.P. No.1, by paying consideration amount of Rs.84,500/-.  After few days of purchase, the said tyres got defective. Therefore, he being a consumer has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps. and the complaint filed against O.P. No.3, who is the manufacturer of the said tyres is maintainable.

In the present case, the complainant has alleged that the tyres, which he purchased from O.P. No.1, manufactured by O.P. No.3 got defective after some time after their purchase. Since the said tyres of the complainant have been manufactured by the O.P. No.3, therefore, the complaint against it is maintainable and the objection raised by the O.P. No.3 is not sustainable.

On merits, the learned counsel for the complainant, who is also appearing on behalf of Sh. Gurdeep Singh, i.e. complainant in CC No. 69 of 2015, has submitted that the complainant Sh. Sadiq Mohammad, handed over his four defective tyres and even Sh. Gurdeep Singh, complainant in CC No.69 of 2015, also handed over his six tyres to O.P. No.1, for replacement and the proprietor of the O.P. No.1 sent all the said ten tyres for replacement to O.P. No.3 through O.P. No.2. But the O.P. No.3 refused to replace the said defective tyres and sent the inspection reports, Ex.C5 to Ex.C14, to the O.P. No.2, stating therein that there is no manufacturing defect in the aforesaid ten tyres. Sh. Jagdish Mohammad, Proprietor of O.P. No.1, also submitted that he sent in total ten tyres i.e. four tyres of Sh. Sadiq Mohammad and six tyres of Sh. Gurdeep Singh, to the O.P. No.3 for replacement.

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 submitted that the O.P. No.3 never received any tyre from or on behalf of the complainant and Sh. Gurdeep Singh. The copies of ten inspection reports, produced by the complainant and Sh. Gurdeep Singh, before this Forum are in the name of Rupinder Singh Dhaliwal of Dhaliwal Transport and has no concern with the tyres of the complainant and Sh. Gurdeep Singh. He further submitted that after testing the two tyres, which were sent by the complainant to IRMRA, it has reported that there is no defect in the said two tyres. Thus, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

The complainant has averred that he handed over his four defective tyres to O.P. No.1, for sending the same to manufacturer i.e. O.P. No.3, for replacement. The stand of the O.P. No.1 is that it had sent the said tyres to O.P. No.3 for replacement. On the other hand, the stand of the O.P. No.3 is that it never received any tyre from the complainant. Once, there is total denial from the O.P. No.3 regarding receipt of tyres from the complainant, then onus is

 

on the complainant to prove that it had sent his tyres for replacement to the O.P. No.3, by placing on record any cogent and convincing evidence. However, neither the complainant nor O.P. No.1 has placed on record any document to show that either the complainant or O.P. No.1 has sent the defective tyres of the complainant to the O.P. No.3. Thus, in the absence of documentary evidence, it cannot be presumed that the complainant had sent his defective tyres to the O.P. No.3 and it refused to replace the same. It may be stated that on 20.11.2015, the O.P. No.3, filed an application for inspection of defective tyres by the Government approved laboratory, which was allowed by this Forum, and complainant produced two tyres, which were accordingly, sent to IRMRA for testing/analysis. This Forum, received the report from IRMRA, Ex.OP3/C, on 08.07.2016, in the said report, it is clearly mentioned that there is no manufacturing defect in the said tyres. Since the laboratory concerned has analyzed that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyres of the complainant.  Since there is no manufacturing defect in the tyres of the complainant, therefore, complaint filed by the complainant against the O.Ps., is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merits .  

9.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

10.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                     (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 23.09.2016                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER.