Bihar

Muzaffarpur

CC/205/2013

Shri S.N. Singh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor New Moden Tyre & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Kumar Jha

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

 District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur

        Complain Case No. – 205/2013.

  Shri-S.N.-Singh, S/o Late-Maheshwar Singh, Rahul Nagal Motihari Road,     

  N.H. Chandani chowk, P.S. Sadar Muzaffarpur ……………….Complainant

V/S

1. Proprietor New Modern Tyre N.H.-7 Chandani chowk, Muzaffarpur.
2. Proprietor Dealer J.K. Tyre chakkar chowk Muzaffarpur
3. Managing Director J.K. Tyre Manufacturer company link Road No.3 Bahadur Sah Marg, New Delhi -110002….. ………………Opposite Parties

           Date of order- 30-11-2015

                                                                                                  Present.

1. Shri Govind Prasad Singh

                                                                                                                         President,

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

2.  Smt. Archana Singh

                     Member

        Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

 

for complainant –Vinod Kumar Jha – Advocate     

for Opposite Party-  Pankaj Parsun – Advocate

Order

 

                     The complainant has filed   this case on dated  26-12-2013 against the opposite party for his claim of  replacement of New tyre by  second one or value of the tyre  with   9 % interest and further he has claimed Rs. 30,000/-  for mental, physical, financial harassment  and damaged and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost.

            The case of complainant appeared  from his complaint petition supported with an affidavit that he is Rtd. Government officer and has kept his vehicle for personal use.  He  has purchased  this two tyre from opposite party no.-1 on       15-11-2013 for Rs. 11200/- only on payment  basis bearing no. 2213 & 2813 when he came at his house. Out of both tyre one tyre no.-2213 was found crack on two places accordingly he inform the opposite party no.-1 who directed him to produce the tyre before him by the next day accordingly the complainant on      16-11-2013 at about 5 PM he came with tyre then the opposite party no.-1 directed him to go to opposite party no.-2 service centre of his tyre agency then he contacted the opposite party no.-2 from where he was again directed to contact with opposite party no.-3 and they have not given any suitable direction to him.

            The complainant has alleged that the said tyre has guaranty of 3 years and running of 80,000/- Km assured at the time of purchase that if in between any problem arises it will be replaced. The opposite party has further stated him at the time of purchase of tyre that he will give him the original receipt with guaranty paper within 2 to 4 days when original receipt will come to him and has not given any paper of guarantee. When the opposite party had not taken care of his complain, he served the legal notice to the opposite party and requested to change the tyre and he had  invested Rs. 15,000/- per month for his convenience on hire of vehicle in absence of his own vehicle due to defective tyre. The notice was not replied by the opposite party accordingly he has filed this case.

            In this case opposite party no.-3 appeared and has filed his written statement on 09-07-2015 alleged therein that the case is not maintainable in eye of law and the complainant has got  no right of case of action  and to filed this case against the opposite party no.-3. The complaint petition is absolutely wrong, false and baseless. The J.K. tyre is manufacturing company produced all types of tyre  in India and abroad having its office at Delhi. The company staff has not done any deficiency in design, material, manufacturing or workmanship. The complainant has not filed any original cash memo of purchase of tyre before the court nor has filed any warranty paper and has not deposited the alleged damaged tyre for checkup before any of the opposite party. He had not lodged any claim in wiring before the opposite party no.-3. He has further alleged that legal notice was received to him and was replied on 06-12-2013 through his service engineer Mr. Anupam Ashish and the complainant was requested to submit the complained tyre to the opposite party no.1 or 2 for prompt inspection by engineer for alleged damaged tyre, but the complainant has not submitted the tyre to the opposite party.1 and 2 and filed this false case and on this basis opposite party has prayed to dismiss the case.

The opposite party has filed Xerox copy of letter of reply of legal notice dated 06-12-2013 by which it appears that the complainant was directed to produce the said damaged tyre  before opposite party no.-1 or 2.

            In This case opposite party no.-1 and 2 not appeared to answer  the case and when the service of notice against them was found sufficiently served the case has been proceeded for Ex. Party hearing against the opposite party no.1    and 2.

            In This case complainant has filed Xerox copy of legal notice and receipt of purchase of tyre dated 15-11-2013

            Considering the facts, circumstances, material available with the record as well as allegation of respective parties, it is admittedly clear that the legal notice of complainant was duly replied by the opposite party no.-3 by his reply letter dated 06-12-2013 in which he has requested the complainant to produce  his tyre. And the claim of opposite party that due to not production of tyre, it was not examined by service engineer who was deputed to examine and report but it is also appears necessary for the opposite party no.-3 that whether this notice was properly served  to the complainant or not. In this regard the opposite party no.-3 has not filed any proof of service of reply over the complainant, which is required for the opposite party to consider his allegation because the complainant has alleged in his complaint petition that his legal notice was not replied by any of the opposite party. Regarding the purchase of tyre the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase receipt dated 15-11-2013 in the type of instimated receipt   of new Modern Tyre , Muzaffarpur Opposite party no.-1  and from which it appears that the complainant has purchased  the tyre in two pieces d for Rs. 11,200/- out of which only one tyre was  found defective. As per the allegation of complainant the defective tyre. Bears no.- 2213 which is found mentioned  in purchase receipt. As such there is no doubt of purchase of said alleged damaged tyre. The  opposite party no.1 and 2 are  dealers  of opposite party no.-3 at Muzaffarpur who  have not appeared to answer the case. Only opposite party  no.-3 appeared and taken plea that the complainant  has not produced the said defective tyre for examination which was requested by him but at the same time he has not filed any documentary prove to show that it was properly  served to the complainant or the complainant was under knowledge to produce his tyre before the service engineer of opposite party no.-3 as such the plea of the opposite party no.-3 is not sustainable .

            Considering the facts, circumstances and as per above discussions we are of the opinion  that the complainant has been found able to prove his case and he is entitle for price of one tyre purchase from the opposite party no.1 for Rs. 5600/- with interest.

            Accordingly the case of the complainant is allowed and the opposite parties  No. 1 is directed to pay Rs.  5600/- the price of one tyre with interest @ 8 % per year to the complainant and opposite party no.1 is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- for his mental, physical harassment including the litigation cost. Both the payment should be made in favour of complainant within 30 days of the order otherwise the complainant is entitled to get it recover from the process of law. 

 

 

               Member                                                                 President