Haryana

StateCommission

A/74/2017

BRIDGESONE INDIA PVT LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEPAK BAJAJ - Opp.Party(s)

PAWAN KUMAR

07 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                First Appeal No  :      74 of 2017

Date of Institution:     23.01.2017

Date of Decision :     07.02.2017

 

 

 

Bridgestone India Private Limited, Plot No.A-43, Phase II, MIDC Chakan, Village Sawadari, Taluka Khed, District Pune, Maharashtra.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

 

1.      Deepak Bajaj son of Sh. Gobind Ram Bajaj, resident of House No.294/14, Ashok Nagar, Ganaur Mandi, District Sonipat.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Delhi Tyres, Gohana Chowk, Near Maharaja Hotel, G.T. Road, Panipat through its Proprietor.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member                               

 

                                                                        Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

 

 

Argued by:          Shri M.P. Updhyay, Advocate for appellant.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.

 

By filing the present appeal, Bridgestone India Private Limited-opposite party No.2 (appellant herein) has challenged the order dated December 23^rd, 2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Deepak Bajaj-complainant was allowed. The appellant was directed to replace the defective tyre and to pay Rs.1200/- as compensation to the complainant.   

2.      The complainant purchased two tyres of Bridgstone make for his car from Delhi Tyres-opposite party No.1 for Rs.7200/- vide bill No.1384 dated June 06^th, 2015.  After sometime, the complainant noticed some defects in one of the tyre.  He approached opposite party No.1 but to no avail.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The opposite parties, in their written version, denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the tyre and pleaded that after inspecting the tyre, it was reported by Technical Engineer, Deepak Singh that the tyre was having “Sidewall Bulge, which occurred due to breaking of ply cords as sidewall got pinched in between potholes and rim flange.  Mark of impact was also visible on the sidewall.    

4.      It is not in dispute that the tyre purchased by the complainant developed defects during the warranty period. The opposite parties secured the report (Annexure 1) prior to the filing of the complaint in their favour.  The plea of the opposite parties that the complainant refused to sign the claim form is not tenable because there is no mention/note on the report in this regard. Thus, the aforesaid report was not having any significance.  The District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint and as such, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

5.      The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 07.02.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President