BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.229 of 2015

Date of Instt. 27.05.2015

Date of Decision :31.5.2016

Vinod Aggarwal aged about 35 years son of Sadhu Ram C/o M/s S.V.Traders, 15, Krishan Murari Mandir Market, Gopal Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Hyundai Motor India Engg.Pvt Ltd., location: Kanchipuram, Add: Irrugattukottai, NH No.4, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District Tamil Nadu-602117 through its MD/Chairman.

2. M/s Goyal Automotive Pvt Ltd, GT Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar through its MD.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.RK Bhalla Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.MS Sachdev Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Vikas Sood Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (herein called as OP) on the averments that complainant purchased Hyundai Verna Car from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 30.10.2013 with warranty of two years on the car including tyres. In February, 2015, complainant found some problem while driving. Complainant got checking his vehicle from OP No.2 on 14.12.2015 and found that both the rear tyres are bulging. As such, there was technical manufacturing defect in these tyres. Complainant requested the Ops to replace the said tyres but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Complainant also served legal notice dated 5.3.2015 upon the OP but in vain. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the Ops to replace the tyres of the said car. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written replies. In its written reply, OP No.1 pleads that there is no defect in the car. The batteries, audio systems, tyres and tubes originally equipped on Hyundai vehicle are warranted directly who is manufacturer and not by OP No.1. The complainant has not made tyre company as party in the present complaint for proper adjudication of dispute. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. He did not disclose the fact that the complainant got inspected the tyres in question from tyre manufacturing company i.e. Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd and the tyre company reported that impact bulging of tyres was due to impact on tyres by external hard object. The complainant has concealed this report dated 26.2.2015 that is why he has not made the tyre manufacturing company as party in the present complaint. OP No.1 deals with all its dealers on principal to principal basis. As such, the concerned dealer is responsible for any error, omission/misrepresentation at the time of retail, sale, services and repairs etc. The tyres and tube originally equipped on Hyundai vehicle are warranted directly by the respective manufacturer and not by OP No.1.

3. In its written reply, OP No.2 pleaded that enquiry/ investigation transpired that damage in the tyres of the car in question due to impact of external edged object on pinching of side wall of tyre between rim flange and pot hole. The OP No.2 is only retailer and used to sale the car whereas the warranty is to be provided by the manufacturer of the car as well as tyres.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copy of document Ex.OP1/1 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith copy of document Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence.

6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Hyundai Verna Car from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 30.10.2013 Ex.C1 with warranty of two years on the car including tyres. In February, 2015, complainant found some problem while driving. Complainant got checked his vehicle from OP No.2 on 14.12.2015 and found that both the rear tyres are bulging. As such, there was technical manufacturing defect in these tyres. Complainant requested the Ops to replace the said tyres but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Complainant also served legal notice dated 5.3.2015 Ex.C4 upon the OP but in vain. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the OP No.1 is that there is no defect in the car. The batteries, audio systems, tyres and tubes originally equipped on Hyundai vehicle are warranted directly who is manufacturer and not by OP No.1. The complainant has not made tyre company as party in the present complaint for proper adjudication of dispute. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. He did not disclose the fact that the complainant got inspected the tyres in question from tyre manufacturing company i.e. Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd vide report Ex.OP2/1 and the tyre company reported that impact bulging of tyres was due to impact on tyres by external hard object. The complainant has concealed this report dated 26.2.2015 that is why he has not made the tyre manufacturing company as party in the present complaint. OP No.1 deals with all its dealer on principal to principal basis. As such, the concerned dealer is responsible for any error, omission/misrepresentation at the time of retail, sale, services and repairs etc. The tyres and tubes originally equipped on Hyundai vehicle are warranted directly by the respective manufacturer and not by OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that under these circumstances as explained above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 qua the complainant.

9. Whereas, the case of the OP No.2 is that enquiry/ investigation transpired that damage in the tyres of the car in question was due to impact of external edged object on pinching of side wall of tyre between rin flenge and pot hole as per report Ex.OP2/1. The OP No.2 is only retailer and used to sale the car whereas the warranty is to be provided by the manufacturer of the car as well as tyres. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.2 qua the complainant.

10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased a car in question from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 30.10.2013 Ex.C1. In February, 2015, complainant found some problem while driving the car in question and he got checked the vehicle from OP No.2 on 14.2.2015 and found that both the rear tyres are bulging. The complainant submitted that there was technical manufacturing defect in these tyres. The complainant was reported by Ops that the warranty of originally equipped tyres and tube is to be provided by manufacturer of the tyre i.e. Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd company as per warranty Ex.OP1/1. Resultantly, complainant got checked these tyres from Bridgestone service centre who vide report Ex.OP2/1 submitted that impact bulging found in tyres was due to impact of external hard object or pinching of side wall between rim flange and pot hole causing ply card damage from inside which result into bulging. There is no manufacturing fault of tyres. The Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd company has submitted that the defect in the tyres of the car occurred due to misuse of the tyres by the complainant i.e. impact bulging in the tyres was due to impact of external hard object, which is not covered under the warranty. As such, the Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd company has rejected the claim of the complainant. That is why complainant did not intentionally make the Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd Company a party in the present complaint. Rather, he has concealed all these facts that his claim has already been rejected by the Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd Company regarding the replacement of tyres in question. As such, we do not find any merit in this complaint.

11. Consequently, complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

31.5.2016 Member President