MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the OP against order dated 25.5.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 1532 of 2009.

2.            Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 15.3.2009 the complainant purchased four Bridgestone Radial Tyres for his Swift Car of size 195/60 for a sum of Rs.16,000/- vide bill/invoice No.13505 dated 15.3.2009 from OP and the warranty card was also issued to the complainant. The said payment was made through credit card of ICICI Bank. It was submitted that when the new alloys wheels and the tyres were installed, the alignment and the wheel balancing was done from authorized dealer i.e. Punjab Tyres, Sector 22, Chandigarh. During the warranty period itself, after covering 2000 Kms only, the said tyres got damaged. The complainant reported his grievance and bring it into the notice of OP about the said tyres. The OP called the Engineer of Bridgestone at his shop then the Engineer checked the tyres as the shape of the tyres were spoiled and he preferred proper alignment. On the suggestion of the said Engineer, on 3.6.2009 the alignment of the tyres was checked from Berkley Auto Care at 17,146 Kms and the alignment of the tyres was found OK. The complainant went to the OP and the OP sent the complainant to company’s office at Manimajra. The Engineer checked the tyres and verified the print out of alignment checked by Berkley Auto Care but the Engineer after verification refused to replace the tyres. Despite various visits to OP for replacement of damaged tyres, being under warranty period, the OP had flatly refused to replace them. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 3.7.2009 through UPC, which was duly served upon the OP for settling the claim. The OP sent his reply of the said legal notice and denied the claim of the complainant. The above said act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by the OP on 18.2.2010 and after that, none was appeared on behalf of OP and hence, OP was proceeded against exparte. In the reply, it was submitted that the complainant had not impleaded the necessary party i.e. the Company (Manufacturer of Tyre) and the manufacturer was alone liable to pay damages or exchange the damaged tyres. It was further submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres and the tyres were got damaged due to the faulty wheel balancing and realignment done by the complainant from Punjab Tyres, Sector 22, Chandigarh. It was further submitted that the Technical Engineer of the company after inspection of the tyres reported irregular wear and tear in front tyres due to faulty alignment of the vehicle and not due to any manufacturing defect in the tyres. It was submitted that the makers of the tyres i.e. the company as per their warranty policy is liable only if there had been a manufacturing defect in the tyres and not if the tyres had been put improper use of tyres due to faulty alignment and wheel balancing of the vehicle. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.

4.         The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

5.         The learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP as per the following directions :-

a)         The OP shall replace all the four defective tyres with brand new tyres of same brand and size and supply it to the complainant with fresh warranty as per company rules.

b)         The OP shall further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the complainant.

c)         The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

            The aforesaid order was directed to be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP would be liable to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 27.11.2009 till all the four defective tyres are placed with new ones, besides paying the costs of litigation of Rs.2500/-.

6.            Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the OP.  Sh.Vinay Bhandari, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellant and Sh.Varinder Arora, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Manmohan Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent.

7.         In appeal, it has been contended by the OP that the complainant had not impleaded the true owner of appellant firm i.e. Sh.Sarabjit Singh and had infact impleaded Sh.Jasjeet Singh who is son of Sh.Sarabjit Singh. The complainant had also not impleaded the tyre company, who alone were liable to replace the tyres, if there is manufacturing defect in the tyres. The learned District Forum had not given any finding that the damage of the tyres was due to manufacturing defect and the complainant has also not pleaded in its complaint that there was manufacturing defect in the tyres sold to him. It is submitted by the appellant that while passing the impugned order, the learned District Forum erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the tyres sold to the complainant were damaged on account of manufacturing defect and the said conclusion is totally based upon conjectures and surmises. Hence, it is prayed that appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be set aside.

8.         We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9.         It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased four Bridgestone Radial Tyres for his car from OP on 15.3.2009 but the said tyres got damaged within the warranty period and that too after covering a mileage of 2000 kms only. As per the contention made by the complainant that he approached the OP for the replacement of the above said damaged tyres but the OP refused to replace the same on the ground that the Punjab Tyres, Sector 22, Chandigarh has done a faulty alignment and wheel balancing of the car due to which the said tyres got damaged. The Annexure C-2 placed on record by the complainant shows that the wheel balancing and alignment of his vehicle has been done on 15.3.2009 (the date on which the tyres were purchased). It was further submitted that the complainant again took his vehicle for the same purpose to the Berkley Auto Care on 3.6.2009 and the wheel balancing and alignment was found to be OK as per Annexure C-3.  In addition to this, the photographs of the damaged tyres were also placed on record by the complainant.

10.       It was contended by the OP that due to faulty wheel balancing and alignment, the above said tyres got damaged. It is further submitted that the complainant had not impleaded the manufacturer as a party, who alone were liable to replace the tyres, if there is any manufacturing defect in the tyres. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be set aside.

11.       After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP by not replacing the defective tyres, which were in a warranty period and has run only for 2000 kms. In our opinion, the OP is liable to replace the damaged tyres to the complainant because the complainant had purchased these four tyres from the OP being dealer of the Bridgestone Tyres. Moreover these tyres got damaged within the warranty period with these facts it is the duty of the OP to inform the manufacturer about the damaged tyres and got it replaced with the new one and deliver it to the complainant. Keeping these facts in mind, the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant. Hence, no interference is called for. The appeal filed by OP is hereby dismissed as devoid of any merit and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

12.       Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.