Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Honble Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President;
Mr. Sada Nand & Mrs. P. Ojha, Members
GOOD YEAR INDIA LTD.—Appellant
versus
RANJIT KAUR & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal No. 32 of 1996—Decided on 11.12.1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Ashok Sharma. Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. K.S. Bawa, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Kasturi Lal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3:Mr. O.P. Ahluwalia, Advocate.
A consumer cannot claim compensation for defective goods if they delay in making their complaint and do not provide cogent evidence to support their claim.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 13 - DEFECTIVE TYRES - LIABILITY OF MANUFACTURER AND DEALER - DELAY IN COMPLAINT - NO MANUFACTURING DEFECT - DEFECT IN RIMS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO MANUFACTURER OR DEALER - COMPLAINT DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a tractor with Goodyear tyres in 1992. In 1994, she complained to the dealer about excessive wear of the rear tyres. The District Forum found that the tyres were defective and ordered the manufacturer and dealer to replace the tyres, pay compensation for harassment, and reimburse the complainant for the cost of tilling the land. The manufacturer and dealer appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission found that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres and that the defect in the rims was not attributable to the manufacturer or dealer. It also found that the complainant had delayed in making her complaint and that she had not provided cogent evidence to support her claim.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a manufacturing defect in the tyres. 2. Whether the defect in the rims was attributable to the manufacturer or dealer. 3. Whether the complainant had delayed in making her complaint. 4. Whether the complainant had provided cogent evidence to support her claim.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Commission relied on a letter from Goodyear India Limited stating that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres. 2. The State Commission relied on an affidavit from the dealer stating that there was no fault in any of the components of the tractor, including the rear axle, brake drum, etc. 3. The State Commission found that the complainant had delayed in making her complaint for more than two years after purchasing the tractor and tyres. 4. The State Commission found that the complainant had not provided cogent evidence to support her claim, such as a report from a government or approved laboratory.
Final Decision: The State Commission accepted the appeals of the manufacturer and dealer and dismissed the complainant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.
Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President—Ranjit Kaur purchased a complete Ford-3600 tractor with Good Year tyres on 23.5.92 for a sum of Rs. 2,15,163/-from M/s. Hindsons Limited, Rajpura, a branch of M/s. ESCORTS Ltd. The main plea of the complainant had been that there was excessive wear of the two rear tyres. Though it was allegedly brought to the notice of the dealer immediately but of no avail. The District Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh in its decision dated 12.4.96 Held that the two main tyres were defective. At the same time it was observed that there was mechanical defect as well in the tractor which contributed to quick damage to the tyres. The District Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh, ordered as under :
"(i) To replace the rear tyres of the tractor of the complainant with the same make;
(ii) To pay to complainant Rs. 10,000/-for reimbursing the complainant for the charges she had to incure for getting the land tilled;
(iii) OPs shall pay to complainant Rs. 5,000/-as compensation for the harassment caused to her;
(iv) Complainant is also Held entitled to the costs of the complaint assessed at Rs. 2,000/-/'
It was further ordered that the liability to satisfy the reliefs granted to the complainant shall be joint and several qua the manufacturer, respondent No. 1 and the tyre dealer, respondent No. 3. Aggrieved against it the Appeal No. 32 of 1996 has been preferred by M/s. Good Year India Limited and Appeal No. 33 of 1996 by M/s. ESCORTS Ltd.
2. A perusal of the record shows that attention of the respondents was invited to the alleged excessive wear of the tyres on 7.9.94 though the tyres were purchased by the respondent on 23.5.92. The warranty was for a period of one year. There is no evidence to show that the complainant-customer or any other person on her behalf made a complaint to any of the appellants for the entire remaining period of 1992 and even in 1993. A letter of M/s. Good Year Limited dated 29.9.94 (Annexure C-4) has been looked into and it is reproduced as under:
"The Regional Manager
29.9.94
Escorts Limited,
SCO No. 2471-72, Sector 22C,
Chandigarh.
Ref.
PMS/CHD dated 19.9.94
Sub.
13.6.28 8B Assle Nylon
Tyres
(i)
C524 MAY 92
(ii)
C587 MAY 92
This is with further reference to the visit of Shri Tara Singh today.
We have carefully examined the above mentioned tyres and advise that there is no manufacturing defect in these tyres. This is without prejudice.
Thanking you,
Yours truely,
For Goodyear India Ltd.
Sd/-
Depot Manager"
3. A perusal thereof goes to show that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres. There is an affidavit of Vikram Singh s/o Sh. Mahavir Singh of Dera Bassi, wherein it has been deposed that he examined the tractor and found that there was defect in the rear rims. This affidavit is dated 3/6.3.95. If some defect was noticed in the rims in the month of March, 1995 it could not render either of the appellants liable in respect of the two tyres which were sold long ago on 23.5.92. On the contrary there is a reply in the form of an affidavit filed by Sh. Sat Pal Sharma, Manager of M/s. Hindsons Limited, Rajpura and the relevant part thereof is reproduced as under:
"No claim whatsoever was ever made by the claimants against the deponent in respect of any defect in material and workmanship in respect of the Tractor in question. On receipt of the complaint regarding defect in the tyre, the subject matter of the present complaint, the excessive wear and tear of the rear tyre, the tractor in question was duly checked by Mr. P.M.S. Kalra, Service Engineer of the deponent in their workshop on 30.9.93 vide Job Card No. 1925 but no fault in any of the component of the tractor including; the rear axle, brake drum etc. was found and the tractor in question was mechanically perfect & O.K. However, it was noticed that there was excessive tyre pressure which was got corrected and in terms of the warranties with the manufacturer, the OP No. 3 the matter was referred to them. It was made clear while making the
