The claimant Ikram-ul-Haq has filed a claim/complaint against the respondent under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 for replacement of two tyres of his car and Rs.20000/- as legal charges.
Brief facts according to the written complaint are that the Claimant purchased two tubeless tyres for his Suzuki Mehran car from the dealer of the Respondent in July 2006. That a week ago before filing of this complaint on 25-04-2007 the wheel balancer told him that the Wheel Balancing of two tyres of his car cannot be performed as they have lost their shape. He has further alleged that the defect occurred in the tyres due to manufacturing fault and is violative of lifetime guarantee. The complainant approached the respondent for replacement of tyres. But inspite of repeated requests the Respondent failed to replace the tyres. The complainant issued a Legal Notice under Section 28 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 to the Respondent. Hence this complaint.
The Respondent was summoned who filed a written reply on 16-05-2007 and took a number of preliminary objections. On the divergent pleadings of the parties following Issues were framed.
ISSUES.
1. Whether the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable? OPR
2. Whether the Petition is false, frivolous, vexatious and malafide and is liable to rejection U/S 35 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005.OPR
3. Whether the claim of the petitioner is barred by time ?OPR
4. Whether the claim has been filed to blackmail and damage the goodwill of the Respondent OPR
5. Whether the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands and has no cause of action OPR 5(A) Whether the respondent had given any warranty for replacement of tyres? OPR
6. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the claim as prayed for ? OPP Evidence of the claimant was recorded as PW1. The Respondent produced RW1 Naubahar RW2 Syed Irshad Ali and produced the warranty card Ex R/1 and report Mark "A". Both the parties closed their evidence on 26-07-2007 and 18-07-2007 respectively.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that the respondent had admitted in their report mark A that the cords of the tyres were damage and side wall had developed bulges. He has further contended that it has also been proved by respondent himself through warranty card Ex R/1 that no period of warranty has been fixed. Therefore it proves that there was lifetime guarantee and this has not been rebutted by the Respondent during cross-examination of the claimant. He has prayed that his claim be accepted.
On the other hand the counsel for the respondent has contended that the defect in the tyres had occurred due to the rough use and fault of the petitioner and according to the report Mark A of the expert, both the tyres were run flat and cords were broken. He has further contended that the claim is neither maintainable nor acceptable. He has also contended that the same is barred by time. He has further contended according to the warranty, the Respondent is only liable for the repair of tyres. He has further contended that this claim has been filed to blackmail and harass the respondent. He has also contended that the claimant has failed to prove his case and therefore this petition be dismissed.
After hearing the arguments on behalf of both the parties, scanning the evidence produced by them, my issue wise findings are as follows: ISSUES NO. 1,2,4 AND 5 Issues Number 1, 2, 4 and 5 are interlinked and their onus is on the respondent, therefore they are decided together. There is no evidence on record to prove that the petition is not maintainable and the same is false, frivolous, vexatious and malafide and the same has been filed to blackmail and damage the good will of the respondent. Nor there is any evidence on record, that the claimant has not approached the court with clean hands and has no cause of action. Hence issue No.1,2,4 and 5 are decided against the respondent.
ISSUES NO. 3 AND 5(A)
The onus of Issue No. 3 and 5(a) was on the respondent. Both the issues are interlinked and are decided jointly. According to the receipt of the tyres Ex P/1 the tyres were purchased on 12-07-2006 and this petition has been filed on 25-04-2007. According to the Consumer Protection Act 2005, a claim could be filed within one year of the warranty period, according to Proviso 2 of Sub Section 4 of Section 28, where no period is specified. Ex R/1 warranty card produced by the Respondent themselves, proves that no warranty period has been specified, which proves that the claim of the claimant is within time and the tyres had been sold under warranty Ex R/1. The respondent has failed to prove this issue and both these issues are decided against the Respondent.
ISSUE NO. 6 The onus to prove this issue is on the claimant. To prove this issue the claimant himself appeared in the witness box as PW1 and had almost reiterated the same facts as given in his petition. He has produced the receipt of two tyres Ex P1 amounting to Rs.2900/-. In March 2007 when he went to the Wheel Balancer, he came to know that both the tyres of his car has De-Shaped. He also issued a Legal Notice to the Respondent under Section 28 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 and the Respondent failed to replace the tyres. To rebutt the allegation of the Petitioner, the Respondent has produced RW1 Naubahar Wheel Balancer of their Company who had checked the tyres and informed his senior. RW2 Syed Irshad Ali had admitted that they issue warranty of tyres which are sold. He has produced warranty card Ex R/1 and the written report submitted by him, after inspecting the two tyres which is Mark A. According to him, the tyres had developed a bulge on the outer surface as they had run under inflated condition. In cross-examination, he has stated that it is not a manufacturing defect.
It has been admitted by the respondent themselves during the evidence, that both the tyres had developed a bulge. The claimant purchased the tyres in July 2006 and he came to know about the defect after only 8 months, when he had got the tyres checked by a Wheel Balancer, which is also prove from the report of the Respondent Mark A.
From the evidence on record it has been proved that after only 8 months of the purchase of the tyres they had developed defect which had occurred due to manufacturing defect and the claimant is entitled to replacement of two tubeless tyres from the Respondent Company for his Suzuki Mehran car. Issue No.6 has been proved by the claimant which is decided against the Respondent.
Relief: In view of the findings on Issue No.6 the claim of the claimant is accepted and the same is decreed to the effect that the Respondent shall replace both the defective tyres of the car of the petitioner with two new brand tubeless tyres within ten(10) days from the date of this judgment. The respondent is also burdened with costs of Rs. 10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only).
File be consigned to record room after due completion. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.