Haryana

Karnal

237/2010

Upbhokta Sanrakshan Parishad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bridges Stone - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S. Rana

14 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.237 of 2010

                                                          Date of instt.: 5.4.2010

                                                          Date of decision: 14.01.2016.

 

Upbhokta Sanrakshan Parishad Gharaunda Parkhand Maaharana Partap Chowk, Main Bazar, Gharaunda on behalf of NIsha Bansal w/o Sh.Satish Bansal r/oward NO.3, Sita Nagar, Gharauunda.

.                                                                   ……..Complainant    

                                      Vs.

1.Bridgestone Plot No.5/4, 5^th Floor, Shalimar Marg, Andheri Kurrla Road, Sakirpura, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400072.

2.M/s Gupta Tyre Traders, Railway Road, Karnal.

                                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.M.K.Gupta representative of the complainant.

                   Sh.C.P.Dudeja Advocate for the Opposite party no.1.

                   Sh.D.K.Sharma Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

ORDER:                 

 

                        This complaint has been filed Upbhokta  Sanrakshan Parishad Gharaunda Parkhand Maharana Partap Chowk, Main Bazar, Gharaunda ( herein after referred to as the USP)  on behalf of Nisha Bansal w/o Sh. Satish Bansal,  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, ( herein after referred to as the Act), on the averments that it is a registered Consumer Association registered with the Registrar of firms and societies, Government of Haryana bearing registration No.929 and it can maintain a complaint on behalf of  any consumer u/s 12(B) of the  Act.  The complainant Nisha purchased a tyre for her car bearing registration No.GR-05R, 206, make Santro from  Opposite Party No.2 for a sum of Rs.2225/-, vide cash memo No.16122 dated 20.11.2009. It came to her notice that Opposite Party No.1 had supplied the defective tyre.  On 21.11.2009 she contacted the Opposite Party No.2 and requested for replacement of the said defective tyre. The dealer assured her that he  would contact the Opposite Party No.1 and get the tyre replaced as early as possible and allotted claim no.139. She  visited the dealer a number of times, but he always gave false assurances on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to replace the tyre in a very uncivilized manner. In this way there was deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties, due to which she suffered acute mental agony and unnecessary harassment.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite parties. The  Opposite Party No.1 filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. It has been submitted that authorized technical service Engineer   Sh. Paras Chhabra did not found any manufacturing defect in the tyre of the complainant It was reported that damage on the tyre  was sidewall cut penetration on the tyre serial side position  was caused due to hit by some sharp external object, which was outside manufacturer’s warrant policy. No manufacturing defect was reported. The damage was due to driving of the vehicle  without  avoiding road hazards causing damage to the tyre. Therefore, tyre of the complainant cannot be replaced under the warranty terms and conditions. It has further been averred that the  complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and  the complaint has been filed to harass the Opposite parties and to extort money from Opposite party no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

 

                   The Opposite Party no.2 filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It has been submitted that Opposite party no.2 get checked the tyre from  Engineer/competent official of Opposite party no.1 but, the Opposite Party No.1 rejected  the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. The warranty was given by the Opposite Party No.1, therefore, no cause of action accrued against the Opposite Party no.2 and as such the complaint is not legally maintainable against the Opposite party No.1

 

3.                 In evidence  of the complainant, affidavit of the complainant Nisha Bansal Ex.C1, affidavit of President , USP  Ex.C3 and documents Ex.C2  and Ex.C4 have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties, affidavit of Shri Sushil Thakur, Engineer Technical of  Opposite Party No.1 Ex.O1, affidavit of Sh.Narender Gupta, Manager of Opposite Party  No.2 Ex.OP2/A   and  documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O8  and Ex.OP2/B have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

6.                 There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant had purchased one tyre manufactured by Bridgestone, from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.2225/-, vide bill dated 20.11.2009 Ex.C2.  As per the case of the complainant, the said tyre was defective  and the matter was reported to Opposite Party No.2 on the next day, who assured to get the same replaced, but despite several visits of the complainant, the tyre was not replaced.  On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. As per the report of the Technical Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.1, there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre and cause of damage in the tyre was side wall cut penetration due to hit by some sharp external object.

 

7.                 It is worthwhile to mention that during pendency of the complaint, an application was filed by the Opposite Party no.1 u/s 13(1)(C) of the Act for getting the tyre inspected from some recognized laboratory, but the complainant in reply submitted that the tyre was given to the Opposite Party no.2 and  the same was not returned to the complainant. The Opposite Party no.2 submitted that tyre was returned and the entry in the record regarding complaint no.139 was made in the register, the copy of which is Ex.OP2/B. Even, the mobile number of the person to whom tyre was returned was also mentioned in the register as 92551-00666l.   It was observed, vide order dated 7.9.2011  that it was very difficult to decide as to whether the tyre in question was lying with the Opposite Party no.1 or with the complainant .

 

8.                          The complainant did not get checked the tyre from some technical expert to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the same. Even, no photograph of the tyre indicating manufacturing defect has been produced. In the absence of any evidence the self serving affidavit of the complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the tyre cannot be taken to be the gospel truth. The Opposite Party no.1 got inspected the tyre from Technical Expert  on 2.12.2009 and the complainant was admittedly informed by Opposite Party no.2 that claim was rejected by the Opposite Party no.1. Even thereafter, no effort was made by the complainant to get the tyre checked from some Technical Expert. The Opposite Party no.1 has produced the  copy of report dated 2.12.2009 of Paras Chhabra , Technical Expert alongwith the written statement and referred the same as Ex. 5 in  para no.8 of the written statement. Though the said report has not been tendered separately in evidence, yet being part of the written statement such report can very well be read in evidence even without exhibiting the same in evidence. According to the said report  there was “ Serial side wall cut penetration  due to  some sharp external object hitted . No Manufactauring d effect observed in the tyre”.   There is no rebuttal of the complainant to the said report. Under such facts and circumstances we have no hesitation in observing that the complainant has not been able to establish that there was any manufacturing defect in the tyre purchased by the complainant from the Opposite Party no.2. Consequently, the Opposite Parties are not liable to  pay any amount to the complainant.

 

8.                 As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint.  Hence,  the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:14.01.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:         Sh.M.K.Gupta representative of the complainant.

                   Sh.C.P.Dudeja Advocate for the Opposite party no.1.

                   Sh.D.K.Sharma Advocate for OP No.2.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:14.01.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.