Kerala

Idukki

CC/71/2018

Joseph Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Poomattom

30 Sep 2020

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 6.4.2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of September, 2020

Present :

SMT. ASAMOL P. PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.71/2018

Between

Complainant : Joseph Thomas, S/o. Thomas,

Madakkakuzhiyil House,

20 Acre, Kattappana P.O.,

Idukki – 685 508.

(By Adv: Lissy M.M.)

And

Opposite Parties : 1 . Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.A43, Phase II,

MIDC Chakan,

Sawardari Talukka Khed,

Pune District, Maharashtra.

2. The Manager,

BASEL Tyre Centre,

Idukkikkavala, Kattappana P.O.,

Idukki.

(By Adv: Fenil Jose)

 

O R D E R

 

SMT. ASAMOL P., PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

 

Case of the complainant is that, on 26.1.2017, the complainant purchased Bridgestone 155/70/13/B29076 tyre for his Hyundai Santro Xing Car from 2^nd opposite party. At that time, the 2^nd opposite party offered to the complainant that bridgestone tyres are top quality in the high terrain roads. Usually, bridgestone tyres will worn out only after plying at least 25000 kms. These opposite parties had given an implied warranty to the tyres' quality and mileage at least 25000 kms in high terrain roads. The complainant was actually in possession of a brand new bridgestone tyre with him when he purchased the new tyre from 2^nd opposite party on 26.1.2017. After purchasing the new tyre from 2^nd opposite party, both front tyres were changed and wheel alignment was done by the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant paid Rs.350/- for wheel alignment and

 

(cont....2)

- 2 -

Rs.3400/- for new tyre. The new tyre was fitted with the complainant's car at 22449 kms. The complainant produced the wheel alignment report dated 26.1.2017. The new tyre is completely worn out at 30000 kms. The complainant could use this tyre only for 7500 kms. The complainant made a complaint to the 2^nd opposite party, but they did not take any efforts to replace the tyre. The tyre completely worn out due to manufacturing defects. The complainant produced the worn out tyre to the 2^nd opposite party for replacement, but 2^nd opposite party rejected the demand of the complainant without any proper reason. The opposite parties are bound either to replace the defective tyre or to pay back Rs.3400/- with 12% interest to the complainant. The complainant suffered much mental agony and pain due to defective service and unfair trade practice, hence he is entitled to get Rs.10000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain. Hence prayed the following reliefs :-

a) The opposite parties may be directed to replace the defective tyre or to repay the price of Rs.3400/- with 12% interest.

b) The opposite parties may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.6000/- as compensation for defective goods and service rendered.

c) The opposite parties may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.10000/- as damages to the complainant for mental agony.

d) The opposite parties may be ordered to pay an amount of Rs.6000/- as cost of the complaint.

 

Notice served to opposite parties from the Forum. Both opposite parties appeared and filed written version.

 

From the version of 1^st opposite party, the complaint is totally false, frivolous and not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint relates to any defects in goods then proper adjudication of the complaint, test analysis of the alleged defective goods, in the present matter the tyre as per Sec.13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 needs to be carried out in the interest of justice, for ascertaining the real cense of the alleged defectiveness of the tyre. It is submitted that the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party with the complaint of excess wear in the tyre. The 2^nd opposite party being the authorised dealer

(cont....3)

- 3 -

of 1^st opposite party, that is, the manufacturer of the tyre forwarded the complaint to the technical service engineer of 1^st opposite party. So that the tyre could be technically inspected and grievances of the complainant could be resolved in accordance with the bridgestone warranty policy. As per the warranty conditions, the technical service engineer will inspect the tyre and if the tyre reports damage attributable to manufacturing defect, then the same is replaced in accordance with bridgestone warranty policy. It is also submitted that warranty stands only against the tyre damaged due to manufacturing defect and not against damages caused by any other reason. On receipt of the complaint, the technical service engineer of 1^st opposite party scheduled the physical inspection of the tyre on 22.2.2018. The technical service engineer inspected one tyre of size 155/70 R13 of pattern B290 TL bearing serial No.W9BKCKA5015. After the inspection, the technical service engineer reported that the damage in the tyre was excess wear, that is, the tyre was fully worn out and even the trade wear indicator were exposed. No manufacturing defect was found in the tyre. The service engineer asked the complainant for providing all the wheel alignment reports since fitment of tyre which is one of the factor to judge the reason for complete worn out of the tyre. The complainant has not provided any wheel alignment report to the service engineer and hence the real reason for worn out of the tyre could not be assessed. It is submitted that the common causes of early tyre wear out and irregular tyre wear are improper inflation pressure and out-of-spec alignment conditions. Improper tyre alignment can cause the tyres to wear unevenly and prematurely. All the wheel alignment reports in a year are must to understand the cause of complete worn out of the tyre. Copy of inspection report dated 22.2.2018 prepared by the technical service engineer is filed. It is submitted that the complainant has no cause of action against the 1^st opposite party.

From the version of 2^nd opposite party, they submitted that, they have only agency work of 1^st opposite party and sold the tyres manufactured by 1^st opposite party without any changes in the tyres. 2^nd opposite party also submitted that they have no knowledge about the defect of the tyre. The complainant needed a bridgestone company tyre from 2^nd opposite party. So the 2^nd opposite party gave bridgestone company tyre to the complainant. Hence 2^nd opposite party has no liability as per the complaint. (cont....4)

- 4 -

The complainant adduced evidence by way of proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P4 were marked. Ext.P1 is vehicle alignment report from Basel tyre centre, Kattappana. Ext.P2 is bill of wheel alignment dated 26.1.2017. Ext.P3 is retail invoice from Basel tyre centre. Ext.P4 is report from Bridgestone Company. The complainant produced the tyre and it was marked as MO1.

The opposite party has filed 5 documents. Exts.R1 to R5 were marked. Ext.R1 is inspection report from 1^st opposite party. Exts.R2 and R2(a) are warranty card terms and conditions. Ext.R3 is misalignment wear conditions. Ext.R4 is copy of CIRT certificate. Ext.R5 is copy of irregular wear conditions.

The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :- We have heard both counsels and have gone through the records on evidence. We have found that the complainant has purchased the Bridgestone Company tyre from 2^nd opposite party on 26.1.2017. As per Ext.P3 document, the complainant has purchased the new tyre from 2^nd opposite party on 26.1.2017 and he has paid Rs.3400/- as price of the tyre to the 2^nd opposite party. As per Ext.P2, the complainant has also paid Rs.350/- for wheel alignment and tyre rotation to 2^nd opposite party. The complainant submitted that wheel alignment was done by 2^nd opposite party on 26.1.2017 at 22449 kms. It is proved by Ext.P1 document. We are of the considered view that the complainant purchased Bridgestone Company tyre on 26.1.2017 and at the same time, the fitting of the new purchased tyre was done into the complainant's car. It was done by 2^nd opposite party. The complainant alleged that the tyre has completely worn out at 7500 kms. But it is not proved by the evidence adduced by the complainant. Also it is not mentioned about odometer reading in Ext.P4, that is, the inspection report dated 22.2.2018 from 1^st opposite party. There is no other evidence adduced by the complainant to prove the tyre has completely worn out at 7500 kms. The complainant also alleged that the tyre completely worn out at 7500 kms due to manufacturing defect. But it has not proved by any evidence. Also the

(cont....4)

- 4 -

complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove the manufacturing defect of the tyre by laboratory test. The complainant has produced the wheel alignment report (Ext.P1) dated 26.1.2017. But there is no document produced by the complainant that the next wheel alignment was done in proper period. As per Ext.P1 from 1^st opposite party, it is clearly mentioned that 'Next free 24499'. Hence we have found that the wheel alignment was not done in proper time by the complainant.

Therefore, we have found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 30^th day of September, 2020

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Joseph Thomas

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - vehicle alignment report from Basel tyre centre, Kattappana.

Ext.P2 - bill of wheel alignment dated 26.1.2017.

Ext.P3 - retail invoice from Basel tyre centre.

Ext.P4 - report from Bridgestone Company.

MO1 - The complainant produced the tyre

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - inspection report from 1^st opposite party.

Exts.R2 & R2(a) - warranty card terms and conditions.

Ext.R3 - misalignment wear conditions.

Ext.R4 - copy of CIRT certificate.

Ext.R5 - copy of irregular wear conditions.

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT