BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 29TH FEBRUARY - 2016
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 89/2012
(Admitted on 09.03.2012)
Mr. Mohandas Shetty,
S/o Late Jayaram Shetty,
“Sagar Nivas” Yeyyadi,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant by: Sri B.P. G )
VERSUS
1. Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd.,
5th floor, Shalimar ONYX Plot No: 5/4,
Mirchandani Business Park,
Saki Naka, Off: Andheri Kurla Road,
Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072
Maharastra India.
2. The Sales & Marketing Manager,
M/s Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd.,
BSID, ONYX Plot No. 5/4,
Mirchandani Business Park,
Saki Naka, Off: Andheri Kurla Road,
Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072
Maharastra India.
3. The Manager,
BSID, Door No. 1/9(1)R.N.Estate,
Near A.J. Hospital Balebail,
N.H.17, Mangalore-575004 ……OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for opposite party No. 1 to 3 by: Sri S.P.Chengappa)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY
This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging manufacture defective vehicle as against the opposite parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
Complainant is the resident of Mangalore purchased Maruti RITZ car from Opposite Party No. 3 and supervised by Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 and thereafter upon exchange of paper the complainant purchased the car on 16.09.2011.
It is stated that on 16.09.2011 when he purchased his vehicle in front of his house he noticed the fault in one of the tyre of Maruti RITZ and unable to move the vehicle. Immediately complainant called Opposite Party No. 3 and took the vehicle to their garage and detached the tyre. The complainant believed on Opposite Party No. 3 and purchased a new tyre and started using the vehicle thereafter. It is stated that 1st week of November 2011 Opposite Party No. 3 took a different version that they are not responsible for any manufacture defect any fault arising after sale of car. It is stated that tyre of new car borrowed from Opposite Party No. 3 was not even used 2000 K.M. It is stated that the tyre is defective and not upto the quality. Hence the above complaint filed U/sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment till the realization to the complainant along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the opposite parties by R.P.A.D, opposite Parties filed version denied entire allegations and stated that the Opposite Party No. 3 received the tyre of size 165/80 R14 bearing serial No. CHE3111 of pattern S248 for inspection on dated 16.09.2011. It is stated that the tyre was damaged due to side wall cut penetration caused due to some sharp external object which was not attributable to any manufacturing defect in the tyre. It is further stated that the tyre is the only part of the vehicle which touches the road surface directly and hence it is opened to risk of impacts by any solid object on the road like a sharp stones. The tyre side wall has to be flexible in order to deliver ride and handling performance. When tyre runs at high speed on unpaved road the sharp object may cause side wall damage and denied manufacturing defect and sought for dismissal of complaint.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Mr. Mohandas Shetty (CW1) the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C3. One sri R. Nanandkumar (RW1), Deputy Manager of M/s Bridgestone India Pvt., Ltd., filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 to R9 are marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:-
Whether the complainant proves that the defective electric scooter vehicle from the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service?
Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service?
If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:-
Point No. (i) and (ii): Affirmative
Point No. (iii) and (iv). As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) to (iv):
The facts which are admitted is that complainant purchased RITZ Maruti Car from Opposite Party No. 3 on 16.09.2011. Now the points are in dispute between the parties are that one of the tyre of Maruti Ritz being unable to move and immediately taken to garage and it is found that the tyre of new borrowed car is defective. On the other hand the council for Opposite Party contended that the tyre is the only part of the vehicle which touches the road surface directly and hence it is spend opened to risk of impacts by any solid object on the road like a sharp stones and also produced one inspection report.
After considering the submission made by learned council for the parties it is proved that the vehicle in question is the brand new and prima facie thee is a deep crack/separation on one of the side walls of the tyre about 8 C.M. in length in the radial direction. However we have gone through the analysis report where in some probability was mentioned but the said analysis not supported by any independent expect. On the other hand the vehicle in question is a brand new as stated supra and the tyre of the said car cannot expect such a crack in a short span of time this appears to be the short fall in quality or short coming in standard. Since the vehicle is brand new and once of the tyre found defect within short period from date of purchase shows that it has some defect and the Opposite Parties are liable to replace the said tyre or refund the cost of the tyre in this case.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, we hold that tyre is defective and Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the tyre or refund the price single tyre i.e. Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from receipt of this order. And also pay Rs. 5,000/- as damages for the in convenience caused to complainant and further pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally shall replace the tyre with new one Or refund the price of the single tyre to the complainant. Further pay Rs. 5,000/- as damages and also pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time, the Opposite Parties is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of FEBRUARY 2016)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW-1 : Mr. Mohandas Shetty – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex. C1 : Original notice issued to Opposite Parties dated 15.11.2011 along with postal receipt bearing No. RK418857404IN, RK418857418IN, RK418857421IN.
Ex. C2 : Acknowledgment Card original.
Ex. C3 : Communication of the Opposite Party dated 28.11.2011.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW-1 : Sri. R. Nanandkumar – Opposite Party
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex R-1 : Copy of Warranty policy of Bridgestone.
Ex R-2 : Copy of Inspection report No. 327893 dated 16.09.2011.
Ex R-3 : Copy of damage mechanism for Sidewall cut penetration
from Bridgestone Technical service Manual.
Ex R-4 : Copy of Extract of cut damages from India Tyre Technical
Advisory Committee Consumer Guide manual.
Ex R-5 : Copy of extract of cut damages from industry Guide to
Tyre Failures.
Ex R-6 : Copy of CIRT certificate for tyre size 165/80R14
Ex R-7 : Copy of Letter of Bureau of India Standards certifying for
tyre size 165/80 R14.
Ex R-8 : 17.01.2013 letter written by Opposite Party
No. 1 to Opposite Party No. 3.
Ex R-9 : 25.02.2013 Reply sent by Opposite Party
No. 3 to Opposite Party No. 1.
Dated: 29.02.2016. PRESIDENT
29.02.2016.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally shall replace the tyre with new one Or refund the price of the single tyre to the complainant. Further pay Rs. 5,000/- as damages and also pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time, the Opposite Parties is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of FEBRUARY 2016)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
