Punjab

Sangrur

CC/394/2018

Pushpa Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Mandeep Bharadwaj

13 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                         Complaint No. 394

 Instituted on:   24.09.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     13.09.2019

 

Pushpa Rani wife of Ravinder Kumar Bhardwaj, resident of SUS College Road, Street No.3, Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Bridgestone India Private Ltd. Plot No.A43, Phase-2 MIDC Chakan Village Sawardari, Taluka Khed, District Pune. Maharashtra India (410501) through its Manager.

2.     Max Autos, Dhuri Road Sangrur (148001) through its Manager.

3.     Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi (110070) India through its Manager. 

             ….Opposite parties. 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Sh. Mandeep Bhardwaj, Adv.              

FOR OPP. PARTY 1           : Shri G.P.Sharma, Adv.

FOR OPP.PARTY 2          : Shri Saurav Garg, Adv.

FOR OPP.PARTY 3          : Shri Satpal Sharma, Adv.

 

Quorum                                          

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

Ms. Vandana Sidhu, Member

Shri Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

ORDER BY:     

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

1.             The complainant filed this complaint pleading that on 4.10.2017 the complainant purchased one car Maruti Dzire bearing registration number PB-13-AX-0083 for Rs.8,20,355/- on installments from OP number 2.  The grievance of the complainant is that one of the tyre make Bridgestone 165/80R14 pattern having EP150 of the said car has been damaged and bulging appeared on the said tyre, then the complainant visited OP number 2 at Sangrur and complained about the same and the opposite party number 2 called the serviceman of Bridgestone on 24.7.2018 but the OP number 2 did not intimate the same to the complainant and serviceman of Bridgestone prepared his report in the absence of the complainant, who mentioned in the report that there is no manufacturing fault. It is further stated in the complaint that the tyre has covered only the distance of 31000 KM within the period of less than one year whereas the warranty of tyre by the company is of 3 to 5 years and the cost of new tyre is Rs.3000/-. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has left with no other option but to knock the door of this Forum to get justice.  Lastly, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to refund the price of defective tyre i.e. Rs.3000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, pain, agony, harassment caused to the complainant and an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             After the notice being served upon the opposite parties, the opposite parties appeared through their respective counsels.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary submissions are taken up that the complaint is totally false, frivolous and the same is not maintainable and that the complaint is devoid of any merit. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has lodged a complaint related to two tyres with M/s. Max Autos Sangrur and on the basis of complaint from OP number 2 on 24.7.2018 the service engineer of OP number 1 physically inspected one tyre of the complainant in question.  The tyre was physically inspected by the service engineer of OP number 1 at M/s. Max Autos, Sangrur and it was reported that the tyre was having shoulder cut penetration by some sharp object hence due to air loss tyre run at very low inflation pressure which damaged the ply cord of tyre consequently bulging appeared on sidewall hence there was no manufacturing defect.   The other allegations of the complainant have been denied.

4.             In reply filed by Op number 2, the allegations of the complainant have been denied and it is admitted that the complainant visited the office of OP on 24.7.2018 and complained about the problem of tyre then the OP number 2 immediately called the service man of Bridgestone on 24.7.2018 who checked the tyre in the presence o the complainant. It is stated further that Maruti Suzuki and OP number 2 does not provide any guarantee or warranty of tyres.  Lastly, the Op number 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             In reply filed by Op number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of proper parties, that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint, that the present complaint is without any cause of action and that the OP is not the manufacturer of the tyres.  It is stated further that vide report dated 24.7.2018 the warranty of the tyre was rejected by Op number 1 stating that the damage of tyre was because of some external sharp object and is not  a manufacturing defect. On merits, the allegations of the complainant in the complaint have been denied that one tyre of Bridgestone make of the car has been damaged and bulging appeared on the said tyre. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

6.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. The opposite party number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed evidence. The    learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP-3/1 to Ex.OP3/3 and closed evidence.

7.             We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents placed by the parties in the Forum as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that on 4.10.2017 the complainant purchased one car Maruti Dzire bearing registration number PB-13-AX-0083 for Rs.8,20,355/- on installments from OP number 2 and that one of the tyre make Bridgestone 165/80R14 pattern having EP150 of the said car has been damaged and bulging appeared on the said tyre, then the complainant visited OP number 2 at Sangrur and complained about the same and the opposite party number 2 called the serviceman of Bridgestone on 24.7.2018 but the OP number 2 did not intimate the same to the complainant and serviceman of Bridgestone prepared his report at his own in the absence of the complainant, who mentioned in the report that there is no manufacturing fault. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the tyre was having manufacturing defect, as such it was required to be replaced with a new one or the opposite parties were liable to refund the cost of the tyre i.e. Rs.3000/- along with compensation and litigation expenses.  The complainant has tendered in evidence photographs, which are Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10  to prove the defect in the tyre. These photographs are not rebutted by the OPs in any manner.  It is evident from the photographs Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10  that there is defect in the tyre and it had not occurred due to wear and tear because the tyre has been damaged and bulging appeared due to manufacturing defect in the side of tyre and if it had occurred due to wear and tear then the same defect would have caused on the base of the tyre instead of side of the tyre. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has contended that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre in question, rather the tyre in question was damaged because of some external sharp object and is not a manufacturing defect. But, we are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the parties as the opposite parties have not produced any such document to support this contention.  We have perused Ex.C-3 copy of the report of the representative of OP number 1 wherein it has been stated that there was sharp cut on the tyre and due to this tyre has damaged, but this contention of the OPs cannot be accepted as the same has not been got signed from the complainant (customer) as in the column of the signature of the complainant it has been mentioned "N/A".  It is worth mentioning here that normally a tyre runs for 60000 KMs, whereas the tyre in question ran only 31000 Kms and damaged, as such we feel that ends of justice would be met if the opposite parties are directed to refund to the complainant 50% price of the tyre i.e. Rs.1500/-.  Accordingly, we direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1500/-  being 50% of cost of the tyre. It is further directed to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

9.             This complaint could not be decided and order could not be pronounced within stipulated time period because post of President is vacant since 7.8.2018 and Lady Member since 16.09.2018. The President is doing additional duty only for two days a week.

 

                        Pronounced.

                        September 13, 2019.

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Vandana Sidhu) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

          Member                  Member                 President