Punjab

Patiala

CC/18/473

Gagandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mast Service Station - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Anand Puri

21 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 473/2018
Date of Institution	:	14.12.2018
Date of Decision	:	21.2.2023

 

1. Gaganpreet Singh son of Devinder Pal Singh
2. Davinderpal Singh son of Mehtab Singh, Both residents of 254, New Mehar Singh Colony, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainants

                                      Versus

1. Mast Service Station, The Mall, Patiala, authorized dealer of Bridgestone India (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Prop. /Manager.

 

2. Bridgestone India (Pvt.) Ltd. Plot No.AA3, PH-II, MIDC Chakan, village Sawardasi Taluka Khed, District Pune, Maharashtra-411051 through its Director/General Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi, Member        

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Anand Puri, counsel for complainants.

                             OP No.1 ex-parte.

                             Sh.J.S.Kwatra, counsel for OP No.2.

         

                              

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Sarvshri Gaganpreet Singh and Davinder Pal Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Mast Service Station and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The averments put forth by the complainant are as follows:

That complainants purchased four tubeless tyresof the brand of bridge stone bearing No.185/60 R 1588H-TLECOPIA, from OP No.1 vide bill No.S1321819-00724 dated 16.6.2018 for an amount of Rs.18000/-(including GST and other taxes).Complainant got fitted aforesaid tyres in car bearing registration No.CH-01-AR-0386, in the name of his father. Warranty/guarantee of one year in respect of said tyres was also given by OPs.

On 19.7.2018, when complainant was going to Chandigarh in the said car, on normal speed of 55 K.M. per hour, one front tyre started bubbling and busted. Complainants with great efforts stopped the car and saved the situation. They brought this fact to the knowledge of OPs No.1&2. Email was also sent in this regard but OPs did not come to inspect the same. On 20.8.2018 and 21.8.2018 another two tyres purchased from OPs were also busted in the said manner. Complainant again informed OPs and sent e-mails. Complainant also requested OPs for replacing busted three tyres being under warranty. Employee of OP No.2 contacted complainant at Mast Service Station. After inspection he disclosed the complainants that he can get only one tyre replaced by paying 50% of the costs of new tyre, which was not acceptable to the complainant. Complainant sent legal notice dated 9.10.2018 to OP No.2 with the request to refund the price of four tyres. They also sent legal notice through e-mail but to no effect. There is thus deficiency in service as also unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainants also suffered mental agony and harassment due to non refund of the price of four tyres. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was duly sent to the OPs. OP No.1 did not appear despite service and was accordingly proceeded against exparte. O P No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement.
4. In the written statement filed by OP No.2, it took various preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that complainants have lodged complaint relating to one tyre with OP No.1, on the basis of which on 24.7.2018, service engineer inspected the tyre  of size 185/60 R15 of pattern EP150 bearing serial No.4WCACNN0418 ,vide his report No.786619. It was reported that tyre was having sidewall cut penetration by some sharp object. Hence due to air loss tyre run at zero inflation pressure and there was no manufacturing defect in the damaged tyre. If the complainant is not satisfied with inspection report provided by service engineer of OP No.2, the complainant can inspect the damaged tyre from Govt. Laboratories.

OP No.2 provides warranty on its products. If, after inspection tyre reported damaged due to manufacturing defect, the same is replaced in accordance with Bridgestone warranty policy and not against damages caused by road hazards and other external operational factors.

Further on receipt of another complaint from OP No.1, on 3.9.2019, service engineer of OP No.2 physically inspected two tyres of size 185/60 R15 of pattern EP150 bearing serial No. 4WCACNN0518 and 4WCACNN0418 and made inspection report No.723819, having submitted that the tyres were having sidewall cut, caused due to pitching of sidewall between pot/hole and rim. No manufacturing defect was found in the tyres. OP No.2 offered complainant for replacement of one year at 50% discount, which was accepted by the complainant. OP No.3 is having well reputation in the market and number of awards were received by Bridge stone for the quality of tyre and sale service from various organizations. Claim of complainants was properly and timely handed by OP No.2. Complainant is not entitled for any claim. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5. To prove his case, ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents, Ex.C1 copy of invoice, Ex.C2 copy of RC of the car, Ex.C3 copy of email dated 21.7.2018, Ex.C4 copy of email, Ex.C5 copy of legal notice, Ex.C6 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C7 copy of acknowledgment, Ex.C8 copies of two emails of legal notice, Ex.C9 copy of invoice dated 29.11.2018 and closed evidence.
6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.2 has furnished Ex.OPA , affidavit of Harjeet Singh, Sr. Engineer in Technical Service Department, Ex.OP1 copy of Aadhar card, Ex.OP2, copy of power of attorney, Ex.OP3, copy of inspection report dated 24.7.2018, Ex.OP4, copy of warranty card, Ex.OP5 copy of  inspection report II dated 3.9.2018, Ex.OP6, copy of Bridge stone damage mechanism explanation, Ex.OP7, copy of damage explanation by ITTAC, Ex.OP8, copy of second damage mechanism explanation of ITTAC, Ex.OP10 copy of BIS, Ex.OP11 copy of tyre approval certificate by CIRT and closed evidence of OP No.2.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the contested parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. Concededly, complainant had purchased four number tyres of Bridge Stone make with the description 185/60 R 15 88H TL Ecopia, vide tax invoice dated 16.6.2018, Ex.C1. Said tyres were fitted in the car bearing registration No.CH- 01- AR - 0386 of father of the complainant, copy of RC is Ex.C2. At the time of purchase of said tyres, OP No.1 assured that tyres were having guarantee against manufacturing defect for a period of one year from the date of purchase. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that one of the front tyres got busted when complainant was going from Patiala to Chandigarh on 19.7.2018 and was driving the vehicle at a normal speed of 55 K.M. per hour. Complainant informed OPs about the same and also lodged complaint with them vide e-mail dated 21.7.2018, Ex.C3. Ld. counsel further argued that after the above incident two other tyres were also got busted on 20.8.2018 and 21.8.2018 in similar way and intimation for the same was given to the OPs. Complaint was also lodged through e-mail, Ex.C4. The said three tyres were inspected by the representative of OP No.2 at the premises of OP No.1. He offered to replace one of the tyres after payment of 50% cost of new tyre. Complainant was not satisfied with the said behaviour of the OPs and legal notice, Ex.C5 was served upon the OPs for refund of the price of all four tyres. Same was duly received by the OPs as per acknowledgment Ex.C7. Notice was also served to OP No.2 through e-mails, which are Exs.C8 and Ex.C8A but no fruitful purpose was served.
9. Left with no other option, complainant then bought another set of four tyres vide invoice dated 29.11.2018, Ex.C9, so as to make his vehicle road able.
10. OP No.2 has argued that tyre of the complainant damaged on 19.7.2018 was duly inspected by the service engineer of OP no.2 on 24.7.2018 vide inspection report No.786619,Ex.OP3,  wherein it has been observed that the tyre was run at zero inflation pressure, due to which side of tyre got damaged. Air loss took place from the cut at the sidewall by some sharp object. No manufacturing defect was found in the tyre and as such the claim of the complainant was rejected. Other two tyres reported to have been damaged on 20.8.2018 and 21.8.2018 were again inspected by the service engineer of OP No.2 vide inspection report No.723819 dated 3.9.2018,Ex.OP5, wherein again it was reported that there was a pinch cut damage in both tyres due to pinching at side wall between pot-hole and  rim fling. No manufacturing defect was again observed in the tyres. Further as per the said report complainant was offered replacement of one of the tyres, which was declined by him. OPs have further argued that their company is reputed company having won several awards and they are known for quality and after sale service. As no manufacturing defect was observed in the damaged tyres, as such claim of the complainant for replacement of tyres was rejected by the company same being not covered under warranty clause.
11. On going through copy of registration certificate of car, Ex.C2, it is observed that car has been registered in 29.11.2012 and complainant had been driving the said car from 11/2012 onwards. Arguments of OPs that tyres were run at zero pressure leading to cut in the tyres does not appear to be tenable as complainant had been driving the said car since past six years and was fully aware that the tyres will get damaged and can also lead accident if tyres are run at zero pressure. Moreover, three tyres got damaged within the period of two months from the date of purchase. The complainant vide tax invoice, Ex.C9 has purchased another four tyres on 29.11.2018, which shows that the tyres were actually damaged and were not road able. Had it been case of damage of one tyre, it could have been presumed that complainant was negligent in handling the tyres. But damage of three tyres within a span of two months indicates that tyres were not of good quality and were suffering from manufacturing defect.
12. In view of above discussion, complaint is partly allowed and  OPs are, jointly and severally directed:
    1.  

 

To refund the price of the same to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of purchase i.e.16.6.2018 till realization.

2.  

 

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, till realization.

The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.

85109252238716.  

DATED: 21.2.2023

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President