BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.463 of 2014

Date of Instt. 30.12.2014

Date of Decision :15.06.2015

Charanjit Singh Toor, aged about 75 years son of Balcharan Singh Toor, R/o 557-L, Model Town, Jalandhar.

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

1. Goodyear India Limited, through its Managing Director/Principal Officer, Ist Floor, ABW Elegance Tower, Jasola Commercial Complex, Behind Appollo Hospital, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110025.

2. M/s Wheel Care through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Person, Nehru Gardan Road, Jalandhar City.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.RK Kashyap Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.BB Sekhri Adv., counsel for opposite party No.1.

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

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 opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of Goodyear Tyres and the opposite party No.2 is the authorized sales dealer for retailing for Goodyear tyres in the territory of Jalandhar. The complainant is owner of Mercedes Car E-250 and having good driving skill for the last so many years, particularly driving Mercedes brand vehicle and used to upkeep his vehicle, regularly. The complainant is consumer as defined under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant visited the opposite party No.2 for the purchase of Goodyear Tyres for his Mercedes Car E-250 on 4.8.2014 and enquired about the best tyres for replacing the old one. The opposite party No.2 recommended the complainant to purchase Goodyear brand tyres for his car and apprised him for best utility of the said tyres on the road. The complainant got convinced on the basis of assurance as to quality, utility and brand name of the opposite party No.1 as recommended by the opposite party No.2. As such, the complainant purchased four tyres of Goodyear manufactured by the opposite party No.1 having specification of tyre size and pattern 245.45.17 from the opposite party No.2 vide cash invoice No.325 dated 4.8.2014 for the sum of Rs.45,500/-, issued in favour of the complainant. The opposite party No.2 also issued warranty card bearing registration No.015501, in respect of Goodyear tyres purchased on 4.8.2014 on behalf of the opposite party No.1. Soon after purchase of Goodyear tyres in question, one of the tyres developed manufacturing defect which resulted in bubble in the tyre endangering the life of the complainant while driving and uncalled damage being caused to the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and brought the manufacturing defect in the tyre to their notice, immediately and the opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that the defective tyre in question would be replaced with new one after the permission of the opposite party No.1. The complainant kept on visiting the opposite party No.2 on various occasions for the redressal on his complaint about the defective tyre purchased from the opposite party No.2. Instead of resolving the problem of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 advised to lodge the complaint over toll free No.18002666767 of the opposite party No.1. Accordingly, the complainant lodged his complaint regarding defective tyre with customer care over toll free number of the opposite party No.1 on 22.10.2014, which was registered on 10.11.2014 vide intimation given on mobile number of the complainant quoting complaint No.Q-2210140022. Even after lodging the complaint with the customer care of the opposite party No.1 nothing positive was done either by the part of the opposite party No.1 or the opposite party No.2 for replacing the defective tyre with new one free of cost as the product purchased are well within the warranty period. Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice dated 20.11.2014 addressed to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 vide registered post dated 20.11.2014. However, the opposite party No.2 remained mum over the grievance of the complainant causing further continuous harassment to the complainant. However, the opposite party No.1 has replied to legal notice dated 20.11.2014 without resolving the grievance of the complainant, in vague manner and rejecting the claim of the complainant for replacement of damaged tyres with new one. The spot inspection report dated 22.10.2014, is nothing but an afterthought procured document in order to save their skin because no such spot inspection report dated 22.10.2014 was provided to the complainant, hence the complainant has no knowledge about the spot inspection report dated 22.10.2014 till the issuance of the legal notice dated 20.11.2014 through his counsel. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the damaged tyre. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that on receipt of the complaint and as a matter of policy and process and reputation which the opposite party No.1 enjoys globally, the opposite party no.1 deputed one of its engineers to inspect the tyres alleged to have become defective, in line with the warranty policy and the process for claiming warranty of the company which is a public document and displayed widely including on the website of the company. On thorough and diligent inspection, the engineer vide its spot inspection report dated 22.10.2014 observed that damage to the sidewall ply cords was due to impact/bruise from external object. Such damages normally occurs when tyre is driven over pot holes/curbs/dividers/bumps on roads at high speeds. Tyre does not suffer from any manufacturing defect hence not covered under warranty. The engineer has thus rightly refused the claim of the complainant as the opposite party No.1 is governed by its own warranty policy extended to its esteemed customers and adheres strictly to the same. Had the tyres been suffering from any warrantable condition, if any, the opposite party No.1 would have entertained the claim of the complainant and would have gladly replaced the tyres in terms of its warranty policy on pro-rata basis. Moreover, the answering opposite party is not responsible/liable for any warranty/assurance given by other opposite party and is governed by its own warranty policy. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.2 appeared on notice but subsequently absented itself from the proceedings and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party No.1.

7. The complainant purchased four tyres of Goodyear mark manufactured by opposite party No.1 from opposite party No.2 vide retail invoice dated 4.8.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.45,500/- i.e @ Rs.11,375/- per tyre. According to the complainant, soon after purchase one of the tyre developed manufacturing defect which resulted in bubble in the tyre endangering the life of the complainant while driving and further damage to his vehicle. Ex.C2 is warranty card containing warranty policy of the opposite party No.1 company. As per warranty policy during first year of construction, the replacement is free of cost. The tyre was found to be defective during the first year of the warranty as according to opposite party, spot inspection report is dated 22.10.2014 i.e just after about 2-1/2 months from the purchase of the tyre by the complainant. In substance written arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party No.1 are that on spot inspection by the engineer it was observed that damage to the sidewall ply cords was due to impact from external object. So admittedly, the tyre was damaged within 2-1/2 months of its purchase. The opposite party No.1 is mainly relying upon spot inspection report Ex.OP2. Opposite party No.1 has not tendered any affidavit of the engineer who conducted the spot inspection report. During the course of arguments, the tyre in question was produced in this forum and it was having internal cut. Ex.C7 is photograph of the defective tyre in question. In case the tyre has been damaged due to the some external impact as observed by the engineer in his spot inspection report then there should have been some corresponding cut or damage on the external side of the tyre but no such external cut or damage was found. So the fact that there was no external cut or damage to the tyre in a way tends to disprove the spot inspection report that the damage to the tyre was due to impact of some external object. So natural influence is that there was some manufacturing defect in the tyre in question for which opposite party No.1 company is liable.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted against opposite party No.1 and it is directed to replace the tyre in question of the complainant with new one free of cost after receiving the old tyre from the complainant or in the alternative to refund its price i.e Rs.11375/- to the complainant. Further, the complainant is granted Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. 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

15.06.2015 Member Member President