BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.250 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 12.06.2018                   Date of Decision: 16.09.2022

Dr. Bhawna Sharma D/o Sh. Jaswant Rai Sharma r/o # 120-B/5, Preet Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar at present residing at Main Bazar, Opposite UCO Bank, Kumarhatti, District Solan (HP).

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Bridgestone India Private Limited Address: Plot No.A43, Phase-       II, MIDC Chakan, Village Sawardari Taluka Khed, Dist. Pune,          Maharashtra-410501, India through its Manager/MD/Authorized         Person.

2.       Wheels World, Kakar Mansion, Shastri Market Jalandhar through     its Manager/Authorized Person.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Vivek Handa, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Nitish Arora, Adv. & Sh. Sudeep Dey, Adv. Counsels                          for OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is doctor by profession and practicing at Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The complainant is the owner of the car bearing registration no.HP14B 2274. The complainant regularly using the car with due care. The Complainant purchased two Bridgestone tyres Model 165/80R14 on 24-9-2016, vide Invoice No.R- 756 from OP No.2 for Rs.6000/-. At the time of sale of tyres OP No.2 described two types of tyres of Bridgestone i.e. OP No.1 and differentiate the quality of both models tyres. OP No.2 suggested the complainant to purchase tyres of upper model 165/80R14 and assured that the running life of said tyres are 35,000 KM to 40,000, KM or guarantee of five years whichever is earlier. As per suggestion and assurance by OP No.2, complainant purchased the above said tyres and changed the same with front tyres of car. At the time of changing said front tyres, the meter reading of vehicle of complainant was 27500 KM and opposite party no.2 also noted down the meter reading on the invoice. After that complainant used her car and time to time also got tyres checkup at Solan. When the car was run about 35000 KM complainant noticed that the tyres of car are getting wear, complainant told these facts to the tyre care centre. Where they advised to approach opposite party no.2. Complainant approached opposite party no.2 where their official refuses to do anything and misbehave with complainant by told her to do anything what she can. Complainant again approached to tyre care at Solan they advised to register a complaint at Bridgestone office i.e. opposite party no.1 and in the month of October 2017 complaint was register complaint vide complaint no.ENQ 00011529. After 15 days officials of opposite party no.1 came to inspect the tyres and suggested complainant to purchase the new tyres and offer that they will provide the extra discount also. Complainant requested them that she purchased new tyres about one year back and only run about 9000 KM and the tyres are now totally wear. She also requested that the quality of these tyres is very poor as the old original back tyres of the car are presently still in running condition. But the officials of Bridgestone i.e. opposite party no.1 after inspecting the same went back. Complainant many times made calls to office of opposite party no.1 but they linger on the matter and finally after 15 days they refuse to do anything. The complaint sent the legal notice to OPs on 25.10.2017 through his counsel and the complainant received the reply of the legal notice from OP No.1.OP No.1 only made false and concocted story just to save their side. The complainant purchased the best quality of tyres as per description given by OP No.2. They also assured complainant that these tyres will run 35000 to 40000 KM and also gave the warranty for five years whichever is earlier. The OP No.2 installs these tyres on 27500 KM but now the tyres are totally got wear and now the officials of tyre care advised complainant to change the tyres. OP No.1 also inspects the tyres but they refuse to do anything. The complainant many a times requested OPs to replace the tyres as the quality of the tyre is not good and having some manufacturing defect and as they also provide the warranty at the time of purchase the tyres. OPs initially lingered on the matter on one pretext to another and finally on 13.10.2017 refused to do anything and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund Rs.6000/- to the complainant which is the bill amount of purchased tyres alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached to this Commission with clean hands. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts in the complaint in order to mislead to this Commission and just to give the legal color to her complaint, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The complaint of the complainant is baseless, frivolous and the complainant had filed the complaint with ulterior motive to harass the OP No.1 and extort the money from OP No.1 and gaining wrongfully on own wrong, hence the same is liable to be dismissed u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act with cost. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing of the tyres by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the OP No.1 very minutely.  

6.                The complaint has filed the complaint being the owner of the car bearing registration no.HP 14 B 2274. It has been alleged by the complainant that she purchased two Bridgestone tyres from OP No.2 for Rs.6000/- vide Ex.C-1, which is the Invoice. It has been alleged that at the time of changing the front tyres, the meter reading of the vehicle of the complainant was 27500 km, which was in the knowledge of the OP No.2 and the tyres got wear when the meter reading of the vehicle of the complainant was 35000 km. As per Ex.C-2, the alignment was proper from 06.11.2016 till 11.07.2017. The complainant has referred the job sheet Ex.C-2, but as per the record, Ex.C-2 is not the job sheet rather the same is detail of the alignment of the car. The complainant has alleged that she got registered the complaint, vide complaint no.ENQ 00011529 in October, 2017, but she has not filed on record any document to show that any such complaint was got registered by the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that the official of the OP No.1 came to inspect the tyre and suggested her to purchase the new tyre. She has alleged that the quality of the tyre was very poor. Ex.C-3 is the legal notice sent by the complainant to the OPs through counsel, but no reply to the legal notice was filed by the OP.

7.                The OP has proved the document Ex.OP1/1, which is the inspection document of the tyre and as per the report on this document, the request for change of tyre was rejected on the ground that ‘the replacement could not be possible as the failure was not due to any manufacturing fault and cause of failure is on both side shoulder fast wear observed in two tyres. No manufacturing fault in the tyres.’ Ex.OP1/3 is the detail picture of the inspection explaining the reasons for shoulder of tread wears of the tyres and the suggestion is to check the inflation pressure at puncture shop in a week when tyre is tored. The OP has also proved on record the warranty period Ex.OP1/2. This document shows that all tyres and tubes have been given the warranty only for manufacturing defects. Minimum period on the warranty is three years from the date of manufacturing of the tyre. Though, the complainant purchased the tyre about a year ago when the same was found to be having wear at 35000 km, but as per the report of expert, there was no manufacturing defect. Vide order dated 23.04.2019, the OP No.1 was allowed to get inspected the tyre in question from Govt. Laboratory bearing all the expenses and vide order dated 12.06.2019, it was observed by the Commission that the OP is not ready to get inspect the tyre from the Laboratory as the packing material is not being produced. As per the order dated 23.04.2019, both the parties were directed to produce the tyres in the Commission and thereafter its packing material will be provided by OP No.1, but as per record, neither the tyres were produced nor the packing material was produced. The complainant has also not proved on record any expert to prove that the damage in the tyre was not due to the fault of the complainant rather the same was having manufacturing defect. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant has failed to prove that the tyre was of poor quality. So, from all the angles the complainant has failed to prove her case and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj      

16.09.2022         Member                          Member           President