CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No: 40/2016
Harvinder Singh Bhullar
S/o Mr. S.S. Bhullar
R/o E-69, Greater Kailash Enclave-1
New Delhi-10048. …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd.
B-1/D-4, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate
Mathura Road, Badarpur
New Delhi-110065.
Registered Office at:
Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No.A43, Phase – II
MIDC Chakan, Village Sawardari
Taluka Khed, Dist.
Pune, Maharasthra-410501.
- The Tyre Plaza (authorized dealer)
B-1/113, Lajpat Nagar- I
Near Defence Colony Flyover
New Delhi-110024. …..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-28.01.2016
Date of Order-18.10.2024
O R D E R
RITU GARODIA-MEMBER
- The complaint pertains to defective goods purchased by the complainant.
- The complainant is the owner of Mercedes CLS 500 bearing registration no. DL 2FHM 9999. The complainant had purchased a set of four tyres of the aforesaid vehicle from OP-2, an authorized dealer of OP-1, on 18.05.2013 for Rs.89,800/-. In May, 2015, one of the four tyres was rendered useless due to a bulge in tyre. Thereafter, the complainant purchased another tyre from OP-2 on 18.05.2015 amounting to Rs.24,000/. On 20.06.2015, one month after purchase of said tyre, the complainant was driving his vehicle on Greater Noida Expressway and to his utter astonishment, the above said tyre of his vehicle burst.
- Only later, after research on the internet, the complainant found that the tyre sold to him by OP-2 was old/aged. The digits on the tyre bearing Serial No.CLA3212 signify the week and year of manufacturing i.e.32nd week of 2012. Thus, in the present case, the tyre was manufactured in August,2012 and sold in May,2015, whereby a period 3 years had passed and the tyre had already aged. The estimated warranty of any tyre is 5 years out of which 3 years had already elapsed. It is stated that the above fact is evident from an article of the OP’s official website (http://www.bridgestone. com.au/tyres/passenger/care/age.aspx).
- On 29.06.2015, an engineer’s report for the present incident was compiled by one Mr. Himanshu Talwar wherein it is clearly mentioned that the tyre had been used only for a period of one month. The Complainant had also purchased two new tyres as the rims of those tyres
had been damaged by the bursting of the said tyre.
- The complainant prays for –
- Replacement of tyres: Rs.53,900/-
- Replacement of rim: Rs.53,900/-
- Compensation for Rs.5,00,000/-
- OPs in its reply admits that the tyre was purchased on 18.5.2015 and was damaged within warranty period. However, it is alleged that the tyre was damaged due to negligence of the complainant in the maintenance of the tyre and is hence, not covered under the policy.
- OPs explains that the vehicle was driven on low inflation pressure in the tyre. OPs further explains that this causes continuous flexing of sidewall due to which high heat is generated inside the tyre chamber resulting in breaking of ply cords as well as inner piles. Damage in the piles causes rupture and a crack appears at the shoulder area of the tyre. It is alleged that such damages could be avoided if the driver maintains proper inflation pressure and avoids heavy load.
- OPs further alleges that the complainant was aware that the tyre sold to him was old.
- The complainant has filed a rejoinder confirming that the averments made in the complaint.
- The complainant has filed its evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-
- Copy of purchase bill is exhibited as Exhibit CW1/A.
- Copy of article for determination of age of tyre is exhibited as Exhibit CW1/B.
- Copy of article posted on website of OP is exhibited as Exhibit CW1/C.
- Copy of an article is exhibited as Exhibit CW1/D.
- Copy of engineer report is exhibited as Exhibit CW1/E.
- Copy of report is exhibited as Exhibit CW1/F
- Copy of legal notice is exhibited as Exhibit CW1/G.
- The Commission has considered the material and documents on record. Invoice dated 18.05.2013 shows that four tyres were purchase by the complainant for Rs.89,800/-. Invoice dated 18.05.2015 shows that one tyre was purchased by the complainant for Rs.24,000/-. Invoice dated 25.06.2015 shows that two tyres were purchased by the complainant for Rs.53,900/-. There is warranty card which provides warranty upto three years.
- Inspection report dated 24.06.2016 is as follows -
Complaint: Sidewall burst
Consumed life: 1 Month: Rear lift
Tyre runs at low inflation pressure, 1 zero inflation pressure for a long time, which damage the tyre. No manufacturing defect found.
- Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in M/s Bridgestone India and another vs. Jeetpal Mittal and another decided on 01.06.2011 has observed:
The allegation made by the appellants that the tyres could get damaged due to driving habit, road condition, brake application, wheel alignment, vehicle maintenance and correct inflation pressure etc. may be responsible to some extent for damage of the tyres but these conditions are application to all the tyres of all the vehicles. It is really unbelievable to accept if the person who could spend money for purchasing the car was negligent in driving or was not following the necessary guidelines to maintain the car.
The appellants appear to have taken these pleas only to absolve themselves in order to escape from their liability.
- Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in Bridgestone India Private Limited vs. Sh. Sandeep Kumar decided on 13.01.2020 has observed:
12. …….We have perused the report (Ex.OP-2/3) of Nitin Bakshi, Senior Engineer, in this report, he has failed to mention the date on which he inspected the said tyre. OPs further failed to prove on record his technical experience/certificates to show that he is an expert person in this field. Moreover, Nitin Bakshi is the employee of OP No.2 Company and is not an independent witness. As such an inference can be drawn that the report could be prejudiced in favour of the OPs. The OPs also failed to produce on record any certificate/document with regard to quality of tyres, which were sold to complainant or any testing report before launching the said tyre in the market in support of their contentions. So in the circumstances of the case, we cannot completely rely on the report Ex.OP-2/3 prepared by Nitin Bakshi.
- It is acknowledged by all parties that the tyre in question burst one month after its purchase and use. OP-1 has presumed that the tyre was driven under low inflation conditions without any supporting evidence. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that in vehicles such as a Mercedes, the dashboard provides a warning when the vehicle is being driven on a tyre with low pressure.
- It is also admitted by OP-2 that the complainant purchased the tyre in question on 18.05.2015, whereas the date of manufacture of the said tyre was 08.03.2012. It has been asserted by OP-2 that the complainant was informed of the tyre's date of manufacture. However, no evidence or proof to substantiate this claim has been placed on record.
- Hence, we find OP-1 guilty of selling defective product and direct it to refund the cost of the tyre i.e. Rs.24,000/- with 7% interest from the date of purchase i.e.18.05.2015 till realization. We also direct OP to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
- We find OP-2 guilty of selling old product without informing the complainant and hence direct OP-2 to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
- Order to be uploaded and file be consigned to record room.
