In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.158/2011

1)                   Sri H.K. Dutta,

Flat no. 19, Block no. 19,

S.E. Railway Officer’s Colony,

11, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata-700043.                                               ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. (BSID),

Flat no. DF-5, Shree Krishna Garden, Dwarika Building,

1/1, Raja Rajebdra Mitra Road, Bellia Ghata, Kolkata-700085.

2)                   Saini Hyundi,

Blocj-J, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053.                                                    ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

Order No.   17    Dated  31/12/2012.

            The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant H.K. Dutta against the o.ps. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. BSID and another. The case of the complainant in short is that complain ant purchased one 1-10 car of Hyundai make from o.p. no.2 on 23.10.09. The cost of the car was Rs.4,01,704/-. The car h as tubeless Bridgestone make tyres. On 28.9.10 the tyre bearing serial no.CCK 3609 burst while returning from the office of complainant to his home at Garden Reach in Kolkata during the evening hours. Complainant immediately contacted o.p. no.2 for replacement of the tyre as it was within the warranty period. The o.p. no.2 management instead of looking into th e problem asked complainant to contact the local office Bridgestone India and gave the phone number of the contact person. When the local representative was contacted he outright rejected the contention of complainant telling that the tyre would have burst due to cut or misuses. Complainant requested him to come and inspect the tyre. He expressed his inability to do so. He did not care to understand that complainant was not in a position to take the said tyre in complainant’s car without a stepni. He also did not agre to inspect th e tyre if it was brought to his office the next day as he was busy. The latest by which h e could inspect was on 4.10.10. Complainant had to use taxi all these days to commute between my residence and office as it was not possible to bring the car on road without a stepni. Complainant had to hire a taxi and  take ½ day leave to take the tyre for inspection. After inspection the Bridgestone personnel rejected the claim on the ground that there was side wall cut by some external sharp object. Complainant was not satisfied with this finding due to the following reasons: -

(1) Visual inspection of the burst part of the tyre does not show any sharp cut,

(2) If there was a sharp object on the road then it would have cut the front tyre first. But the front tyre had no cut.

 (3) The car runs on the roads of Kolkata which are h eavily crowded and one cannot expect any sharp object on such roads as that would hurt the pedestrians. Really it is beyond imagination to think of something like a sword lying on the road which can cut a new tyre.

(4) Complainant inspects the tyres every day before he drives it. No such cuts which could cause a burst was noticed during such inspection. It is worthwhile to mention that in this case the rear tyre has burst. If it was one of the front tyres it would have caused a serious accident.

(5) The car had made less than 4000 km and on the date of the incident it was in use for less than a year.

            Complainant had suffered loss not only because h e had to buy a tyre at a cost of Rs.2700/- but also there was a lot of inconvenience as his car was off the road for a week. The greatest inconvenience was caused by the lack of service, unfriendly attitude and arrogance of o.p. nos.1 and 2. Therefore, complainant with due honour prayed to grand a compensation of Rs.,95,000/- to be paid by both  the o.ps. combinedly. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.p. no.1 had entered his appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against him and prayed for dismissal of the case. O.p. no.2 did not contest the case by filing w/v even after valid service of notice and matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.2.

Decision with reasons:-

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant purchased one I10 car from o.p. no.2 on 23.10.09 at a cost of Rs.4,01,704/- and the car has tubeless Bridgestone make tyres. Further we find that on 28.9.10 the tyre bearing serial no.CCK 3609 burst while returning from the office of complainant to his home at Garden Reach Road, Kolkata during evening hours and complainant contacted o.p. no.2 for replacement of tyre as it was within the warranty period and o.p. no.2 advised to contact o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.1 out rightly rejected the contention of complainant telling that the tyre would have burst due to cut or misuse nor they inspected the same.

            Now we find from the record that the vehicle was within the warranty period and the contention of o.p. no.1 is that there was sidewall cut by some external sharp object. But we have gone through the entire materials on record and we are of the view that such type of sidewall cut cannot be taken place normally within the warranty period used in a metal road like Kolkata nor it has been used in a village road or something like that. Therefore, we are of the view taking into consideration the entire materials on record that the sidewall burst took place definitely owing to manufacturing defect and o.p. no.1 cannot be shirk off their responsibility being a service provider to its consumer / complainant in a vehicle within the warranty period and complain ant is entitled to relief and n exemplary compensation requires to be inflicted upon o.ps. in the context of the facts and circumstances disclosed on record.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. no.1 and ex parte with cost against o.p. no.2. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.2700/- (Rupees two thousand seven hundred) only towards purchased cost of tyre incurred by complainant and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation  cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.