IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2010

Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C.No. 76/07

Between:

M.S. Radhakrishnan,

Meppurath House,

Kuzhikala Muri,

Mallappuzhassery Village,

Kozhencherry Taluk,

Pathanamthitta Dist.           

(By Adv. Roshan Nair.R)                                                                .....       Complainant

And:

1. James,

Proprietor, Shama Auto Scan,

Near St. Peters Church,

(Thattavara Complex),

Pathanamthitta.

2. Manager,

BSID, 34/1241/C,

Beena Anjumana Road,

Edappally, C ochin,

Pin – 682 024.

3. General Manager,

Bridgestone, Sales & Marketing Head Office,

Bridge Stone (I) Pvt. Ltd.,

IVth Floor, A-Wing,

Trade Star Building,

M.V. Road, Andheri,

Kurla Road, Andheri East,

Mumbai – 59.

4. Managing Director,

Bridgestone, Head Office & Registered Office,

Bridgestone ACC (I) Ltd.,

Plot No.12, Kheda Growth Centre,

Pithampur Post – Sagore (454774),

Dist. Dhar (M.P).

(By Adv. Asha Cherian)                                                                  .....       Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):

                        Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 

                        2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows:  The 1^st opposite party is the dealer of the Bridge Stone Tyres.  2^nd opposite party is the Technical Service Department of Bridge Stone Tyres.  The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties are General Manager and Managing Director respectively.  The complainant purchased 2 Bridge Stone Tyres Nos. 2 size 145/80R12T/L for Rs.3,800/- on 6.11.2006 from the 1^st opposite party for his Maruthi Zen Car.  At the time of the purchasing of the said tyre the 1^st opposite party assured that the tyres would be used without any complaints or problems for at least 45000 Kilo Meters and further assured that in case of any damage arising in the tyre before running 10000 kilo meters, the tyre would be replaced and thereafter the same would be repaired in case of any defect or complaint till 45000 kilo meters.

                        3. On 26.12.2006 when the complainant was driving his vehicle through Pathanamthitta Town, one of the tyres of his vehicle deflated and the complainant was forced to stop his car in the middle of the road, thereby causing traffic jam.  The sudden and unexpected stopping of the car caused traffic jam in the road and great inconvenience and annoyance caused to other users of the road, which caused mental agony, and suffering to the complainant.  On 26.12.2006 the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for replacement of the deflated tyre.  But the 1^st opposite party refused to accept the request of the complainant.  However the 1^st opposite party has given a Claim Application Form numbered as 39733 on the same day.  It was forwarded along with claim advice letter to the head office by the 1^st opposite party.  On 7.3.2007 complainant sent a lawyer’s notice to all opposite parties.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party have given the reply notice but till date they have neither replaced the tyre nor paid any compensation to the complainant.  Hence this complaint for replacing the deflated tyre with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.6,800/-.

                        4. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  According to opposite parties they have not given any assurance of replacement or any repairing within the period of 45000 kilo meters of running.  The life of the tyre depends upon the vehicle condition, road conditions, driving habits etc.  The damage to the tyre on 26.12.2006 was due to sidewall cut penetration by some external sharp object.  The 1^st opposite party has accepted the tyre as per claim application form No.39733 dated 26.12.2006 for ascertaining the cause of damage to the tyre.  The 1^st opposite party has forwarded this tyre to the 2^nd opposite party at Ernakulam for inspection.  Sri. Bilal Abdullah, engineer Technical Service Department of the 2^nd opposite party has inspected the tyre and found that the damage to the tyre was caused due to sidewall cut penetration by some external sharp object.  Therefore there is no manufacturing defect for the tyre.  This aspect has been intimated to the complainant through claim advice letter.  Thereafter the tyre was returned to the complainant.

                        5. Opposite parties denied that they have committed fraud etc. to the complainant.  They admit that they had received lawyer’s notice and replied to the same.  The tyre was not replaced since there was no manufacturing defect.  The tyres manufactured and supplied by opposite parties are subjected to regrious quality control test as per standard prescribed by Beuro of Indian Standards.  The Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune has certified the quality of the tyre size 145/80R12.  Hence the contrary allegations of fraud and deficiency in service are false and are denied.  Complainant has no cause of action against opposite parties.  The complainant is not entitled for any sum from the opposite parties as damages or cost.  Therefore opposite parties canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                        6. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration:

(1)   Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

(2)   Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?

(3)   Relief and Costs?

            7. The evidence of the complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him has been marked as Ext.A1 to A10.  From opposite party’s side, power of attorney holder of 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as B1 to B4.  After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard.

            8. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A10.  Ext.A1 is the bill for Rs.3,800/- dated 6.11.2006 for Bridgestone Tyres issued by opposite parties.  Ext.A2 is the claim application form.  Ext.A3 is the claim advice letter.  Ext.A4 is the copy of advocate notice dated 7.3.2007 to opposite parties.  Ext.A5, A5(a) to (c) are postal receipts of Ext.A3.  Ext.A6 to A6(b) are acknowledgment cards of Ext.A3.  Ext.A7 is the reply notice dated 12.3.2007 from 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A8 is reply notice from 1^st opposite party dated 26.3.2007.  Ext.A9 is the returned unclaimed advocate notice of 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.A10 is the Malayala Manorama daily dated 16.7.2008 and Ext.A10(a) is the advertisement of Bridgestone Tyre.

            9. In order to prove the opposite parties case, opposite parties filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  1^st opposite party’s power of attorney holder was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to B4.  Ext.B1 is the dealer claim application form No.39733 dated 26.12.2006 prepared by 1^st opposite party.  Ext.B2 is the claim advice letter No. dated 8.1.2007 issued by 2^nd  opposite party.  Ext.B3 is the photocopy of the Test Report CIRT/1/A/07-0990 dated 1.2.2007 issued by Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune.  Ext.B4 is the attested copy of power of attorney in favour of DW1.

            10. On the basis of the averment and contention of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record.  It is not disputed that complainant had purchased two bridge stone tyres on 6.11.2006 and one of the tyre deflated on 26.11.2006.  According to the complainant, the 1^st opposite party has given the assurance to replace the tyres, if the damage would occur within the running period of 10000 kms.  As per the complainant the damage occured within the running period of 10000 kilometers.  But opposite parties denied that 1^st opposite party has not given any assurance as claimed by the complainant.  According to opposite parties the alleged damage caused to the tyre was due to sidewall cut penetration by some external sharp object.  The tyre would not be replaced since there was no manufacturing defect.  The said tyres are subjected to regrious quality control test as per Bureau of Indian standards.

            11. On perusing Ext.A2, A3, B1, B2 claim application form and claim advice letter.  It is seen that opposite parties had provision for replacement and repairing of tyres.  Even though the claim of the complainant was rejected as per Ext.A8, it is pertinent to note that it is not based on the non existence of the provision of replacement of tyres, but due to reasons beyond control as stated by inspection report.  Ext.A10(a) advertisement shows the bridge stone tyres features and after sale responsibilities which are also in tune with the assurance given by 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  Therefore it is presumed that what assured by 1^st opposite party to the complainant is an obligation binding to all the opposite parties.

            12. Opposite parties stand is that the damage of the tyre is due to sidewall cut penetration by some external sharp object.  Therefore, complainant is not entitled to get replacement or compensation.  Opposite parties has not disclosed that only in such and such cases they would allow replacement or repairing.  Opposite parties also failed to produce any evidence to show that such and such conditions prevented from giving the benefit to the complainant.  Therefore the attitude of opposite parties in denying the replacement or repairing of the tyres is not sustainable.  It is illogic, irrational, illegal and against all the cannons of consumer justice.

            13. More over neither party in this case take any step to appoint an expert to ascertain the cause of damages of bridge stone tyre.  Though opposite parties produced Ext.B3 report the same was objected by the complainant stating that the expert is not examined.  Therefore we are inclined to rely on Ext.B3.  But as per Ext.A8 reply notice, the reason for rejection of claim was reasons beyond control.  That does not mean that in what way complainant is prevented from getting the claim due to the damage of the tyre within the running period of 10000 Kms.  Therefore it is the boundan duty of opposite parties to consider the claim of the complainant.  Disregarding the claim is a clear deficiency of service.  Hence opposite parties are liable either to replace the bridge stone tyre or its value.  The amount claimed by the complainant as compensation and cost is not supported with any evidence.

            14. In the result, the complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to replace one bridge stone tyre within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is allowed to realise Rs.1,900/- (Rupees One Thousand Nine hundred only) the cost of the tyre with 9% interest per annum from this date till the realisation of the whole amount.  The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost.

            Declared in the Open Forum on this the 12^th day of January, 2010.

                                                                                                                     (Sd/-)

                                                                                                            N. Premkumar

                                                                                                                 (Member)     

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                    :           (Sd/-)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)                  :           (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1    :           M.S. Radhakrishanan 

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1       :  Cash Bill dated 6.11.2006 for Rs.3,800/- issued by 1^st opposite party to the 

               complainant.

A2       :  Dealer Claim application form dated 26.12.2006 issued by the 4^th opposite party 

               to the complainant

 A3      :   Claim advice letter dated 8.1.2007 issued by 3^rd opposite party to the 

                complainant. 

A4       :  Photocopy of Advocate Notice dated 7.3.2007 issued by the complainant to 

               opposite parties. 

A5, A5(a) to (c)          :  Postal receipts of Ext.A3. 

A6, A6(a) & A6(b)     :  Acknowledgment cards of Ext.A3. 

A7       :  Reply notice dated 12.3.2007 sent to 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.

A8       :  Reply notice dated 26.3.2007 sent to 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

A9       :  Returned unclaimed advocate notice of 3^rd opposite party. 

A10     :   Malayala Manorama paper publication daily dated 16.7.2008.

A10(a) :  Advertisement of Bridgestone Tyre.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1   :           Vishnu. M.V.           

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1        :  Dealer claim application form No.39733 dated 26.12.2006 prepared by 1^st 

               opposite party. 

B2        :  Claim advice letter No. dated 8.1.2007 issued by 2^nd opposite party. 

B3        :  Photocopy of the Test Report CIRT/1/A/07-0990 dated 1.2.2007 issued by 

               Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune. 

B4        :  Attested copy of Power of Attorney.

                                                                                                                        (By Order)

                                                                                                              Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) M.S. Radhakrishnan, Meppurath House, Kuzhikala Muri,

Mallappuzhassery Village, Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.       

(2) James, Proprietor, Shama Auto Scan, Near St. Peters Church,

           (Thattavara Complex), Pathanamthitta.

      (3) Manager, BSID, 34/1241/C, Beena Anjumana Road, Edappally, Cochin,

           Pin – 682 024.

                  (4)  General Manager, Bridgestone, Sales & Marketing Head Office,

             Bridge Stone (I) Pvt. Ltd., IVth Floor, A-Wing, Trade Star Building,

             M.V. Road, Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 59.

            (5)  Managing Director, Bridgestone, Head Office & Registered Office,

            Bridgestone ACC (I) Ltd., Plot No.12, Kheda Growth Centre,

            Pithampur Post – Sagore (454774), Dist. Dhar (M.P).

      (6)  The Stock File.