Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 715.
Instituted on : 21.12.2017.
Decided on : 29.07.2019.
Dr.Sandeep Mehta age 34 years, R/o House No.293, Sector-14, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Michelin India Private Limited, throughmits Managing Director, Registered & Corporate Office SAat: 3rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurugram, Haryana-122002.
- Mr. Aman Bindra(Proprietor) Ride in style, Havint its office at: Near Bharat Nursing Home, Opposite Vishal Mega Mart, Sonipat Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Anurag Malik, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.04.2016, complainant had purchased four tyres for Rs.16000/- from the opposite party No.2, who is authorized dealer of opposite party No.1, vide bill no.1450 dated 19.04.2016. That on 06.08.2017, one of the tyres, became defective due to leakage of air of the tyre automatically. That complainant inspected the tyre from the local mechanic and he apprised that there is no puncture in the tyre, however it is manufacturing defect due to which the tyre is unable to store the air. That on 07.08.2017 complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and handed over the tyre and he was assured that the tyre will be replaced. That complainant visited twice i.,e. 08.08.2-017 and 12.08.2017 to the office of opposite party No.2 but no satisfactory reply was given. That the defect appeared in the tyre within warranty period, hence the opposite parties are liable to refund or replace the tyre in question but any heed was not paid to the requests of complainant.. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of rs.4000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant annum and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that the detailed inspection of the tyre of the complainant was conducted by the Technical expert of opposite party No.1 wherein it was found that the damage in the tyre of the complainant was in the category of road hazard and the tyre showed no symptoms of manufacturing defect. An SMS regarding the rejection of the claim was also sent to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost. However, notice sent to opposite party No.2 received back with the report of refusal and as such, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.02.2018 of this Forum.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and has closed his evidence on dated 26.11.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence on dated 25.02.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and has closed his evidence on dated 12.12.2018.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments on behalf of opposite party no.1 as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
6 In the present complaint, the complainant has placed on record copy of bill Ex.C1 to prove the fact that he purchased 4 tyres from the respondent no.2 on dated 19.04.2016 and the same were manufactured by respondent no.1. As per complainant, he is an old customer of respondent no.1 and earlier also he had purchased 3 tyres of respondent no.1 company on 11.10.2013. Meaning thereby, he had good faith in the company. As per the complainant, he suffered some manufacturing defect in one of the tyre on 06.08.2017 and reported the matter to the O.P.No.2 on 07.08.2017 and legal notice was also issued to the respondents, which is Ex.P3 and postal receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.C5. Photographs of damaged tyre are Ex.C6 to Ex.C9. On the other hand, respondent no. 1 placed on record affidavit of Sh. Amardeep Singh Sethi Authorised representative of OP No.1 as Ex.RW1/A alongwith report of defective tyre on dated 05.09.2017 as Ex.R2 and also placed on record other documents.
7. We have perused all the relevant documents placed on record by the parties. As per the respondent, the tyre was checked by the technical person and he made a report on 05.09.2017 and came to the conclusion that the side wall of tyre was cut due to an external object. He further contended that tyre was used on low inflation pressure and due to this impact the side wall contacted with road and the tyre of the complainant became damaged. We have perused Ex.R2. After perusal of the same, we came to the conclusion that the report was unsigned and is not supported with any affidavit. Moreover, the respondent failed to prove that this report was prepared or the tryre was inspected in the presence of complainant by the technical person. Perusal of this report itself shows that the same was prepared only on the basis of photographs and the tyre was not physically checked by the technical person. So the said report cannot be believed as without physical inspection of tyre, the same is unauthenticated. We have also perused the authorities cited by ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 titled as Bridestone Vs. Rahil Bansal decided on 09.12.2015 by the Hon’ble SCDRC, Punjab, Chandigarh, Maruti UIdyog Limited Vs. Hasmuch Lakshmichand dated 26.05.20109 by Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi and Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand decided on 04.08.2009 by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi. But the facts of the present case are different from the alleged law. Hence the same are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer to refund the cost of tyre i.e. Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 21.12.2017 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
29.07.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
