BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.146 of 2015

Date of Instt. 08.04.2015

Date of Decision :01.10.2015

Lalit Mahajan aged about 49 years son of Roop Lal Mahajan R/o 80-90, Kalia Colony, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Dada Motors, GT Road, Jalandhar through its Managing Director.

2. Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd, Plot No.A43, Phase-II, MIDC Chakan, Village Sawardari, Taluka Khed, District Pune, Maharashtra-India.

3. Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd, Plot No.12, Sherpur Chowk, Near Arun Gas Service Street, NPC Tempo Union, Ludhiana-141003.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Inder Mohan Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Vivek Handa Adv., counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased LMV Car bearing registration No.PB08CK-7238, vehicle make Nissan, Model Micra, Engine No.E018824, and Chasis No.13D1511319, colour Storm White S Gray vide invoice No.VSLA13000093 from the opposite party No.1 and the said vehicle is insured with the opposite party No.2 for a period from 28.5.2014 to 27.5.2015 vide policy No.253320311361-00000303. At the time of purchasing the aforesaid vehicle it was given assurance to the complainant that the tyres of the abovesaid vehicle will ply for 1 lac kilometers or will not be in a position to change the said tyres upto three years. It is pertinent to mention that from the very beginning the tyres of the aforesaid vehicle started bubbling and after three months the aforesaid tyres started tighting and at that time, the aforesaid vehicle had plied on the road upto 30,000 KMs. The complainant approached the opposite parties No.1 & 2 and requested to change the tyres of the aforesaid vehicle, because, the aforesaid tyres were giving complaint within the warranty period. The opposite parties put the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant visited the office of opposite parties many times, but no fruitful result was received by the complainant from the opposite parties. After expiry of 8 months the complainant by spending a sum of Rs.18,000/- changed the tyres of the aforesaid vehicle. He requested the opposite parties No.2 & 3 to make the payment of the aforesaid claim amount but opposite party No.3 sent the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.2 but thereafter, the complainant did not receive any claim from the opposite parties No.2 & 3. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties No.2 & 3 to pay him a sum of Rs.18,000/- being the cost of the tyres. He has also claimed damages and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 pleaded that there are no allegations against the opposite party No.1 in the complaint. The dispute in fact is only between the complainant and opposite parties No.2 & 3. The warranty of the vehicle is to be given by the manufacturer of the vehicle M/s Nissan India Ltd and as per terms and conditions of warranty the tyres of the vehicle are not covered under warranty and the same were covered by the tyre manufacturer. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty the tyres dealer has to assist the customer and as the opposite party No.1 has forward his case to the tyre manufacturer Bridgestone as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In its separate written reply, opposite parties No.2 & 3 pleaded that on receipt of the complaint of the complainant from opposite party No.1, the technical service engineer of opposite party No.2 posted at local office at opposite party No.3 approached the complainant for the tyres inspection. On 11.2.2015, technical service engineer of opposite parties No.2 & 3 inspected three tyres of size 175/60 R12 TL pattern B 250 bearing serial No.CEB4112 of Bridgestone brand. After inspection of the tyres it was reported that the damage in the tyres was bulge caused due to external road hazards impact which resulted in damaging the plycords. Since such damage was not attributable to manufacturing defect, therefore the claim of the complainant was rejected. The copies of inspection reports No.502177 and 552178 dated 11.2.2015 were given to the complainant and the complainant went away with the report and the tyres. If the complainant alleges defect in the tyres, then the defect could be proved only by laboratory test considering the complainant is not satisfied with inspection done by the qualified and trained technical service engineer of opposite parties No.2 & 3. Without such test, the complainant being a non-technical person can not reach to conclusion about the manufacturing defect in the tyres. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2and3W/1 alongwith copies of documents OP1 to Ex.OP7 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsels for the opposite parties.

7. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased one car Micra Diesel XV Premium (R) from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 28.5.2013 Ex.C1. The tyres fitted in the car were manufactured by Bridgestone Company i.e opposite parties No.2 & 3. Ex.C3 is warranty card in respect of the tyres in question. As per warranty card, the warranty is upto three years from the date of purchase or till the exposure of tread wear indicators, whichever

is earlier, irrespective of kilometer covered. The warranty in respect of the tyres is provided by the manufacturer. Out to four tyres, three tyres became defective as bulge appeared in three tyres as is evident from photographs Ex.C8 to Ex.C10. On complaint, the opposite parties No.2 & 3 appointed technical service engineer for tyre inspection and on 11.2.2015 technical service engineer of opposite parties No.2 & 3 inspected three tyres in question and after inspection of the tyres it was reported that the damage in the tyres was bulge caused due to external road hazards impact which resulted in damaging the plycords and this damage was not due to any manufacturing defect and as such claim of the complainant was rejected. Ex.C4 is report dated 11.2.2015 in this regard. Complainant contended that the bulge in three tyres appeared due to manufacturing defect in it and not due to external road hazards impact causing damage to the plycords as alleged by opposite parties No.2 & 3 and further as opined by alleged expert service engineer of the opposite parties No.2 & 3 vide report Ex.C4. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 & 3 that complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove any manufacturing defect and on the other hand according to the report Ex.C4 given by the expert witness i.e technical service engineer of opposite parties No.2 & 3, the bulge in three tyres appeared due to external road hazards impact causing damage to the plycords. He further contended that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyres in question. We have carefully considered the contentions of both the parties. In the present complaint appearing of bulge in three tyres is admitted and is even evident from the photographs Ex.C8 to Ex.C10. The report of service engineer of opposite parties No.2 & 3 that the bulge appeared in all the three tyres due to external road hazards impact which caused damage to the plycords is somewhat improbable. In case bulge had appeared in one or two tyres of the car only then it could be said that the same was due to external road hazards impact causing damage to the plycords. It is highly improbable that a similar type of bulge would appear in three tyres of the car due to external road hazards impact as alleged by opposite parties No.2 & 3 and opined by their service engineer vide report Ex.C4. The technical service engineer of opposite parties No.2 & 3 would naturally give report in their favour. So in our opinion, the appearing of bulge in three tyres of the car must have been due to some manufacturing defect in it and not due to external road hazards impact as alleged by opposite parties No.2 & 3. The complainant purchased a new tyres for Rs.18,000/-. The car was purchased by the complainant on 28.5.2013 as is evident from the retail invoice. The service engineer of the opposite parties No.2 & 3 inspected the tyres on 11.2.2015 i.e after more than 1-1/2 years from the date of purchase of the car. In para 2 of the complaint, the complainant has himself pleaded that from the very beginning the tyres of the aforesaid vehicle started bubbling and after three months the aforesaid tyres started tighting and at that time, the aforesaid vehicle plied on the road upto 30,000 KMs. So the complainant has used the tyres upto 30,000 KMs. The normal life of almost every tyre is upto 50,000 Kms to 60,000 Kms. So complainant has used the tyres for 1-1/2 years upto 30,000/- KMs i.e about half life of the tyres. So in our opinion, he is only entitled to 50% cost of the new tyres purchased by him.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.2 & 3 are directed to pay Rs.9000/- i.e 50% cost of the tyres to the complainant alongwith Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. However, before receiving the awarded amount, the complainant shall return the old tyres to opposite parties No.2 & 3 through their representative or authorized official. The compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

01.10.2015 Member Member President