Haryana

Ambala

CC/92/2016

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Walia Tyres - Opp.Party(s)

Kamalesh Gupta

26 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.          :  92 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution          :  11.02.2016

                                                          Date of decision     :  26.04.2018

 

 

Raj Kumar  son of Sh. Jai Pal, resident of Dayal Bagh, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       M/s Walia Tyres, Opp. New Anaj Mandi, Hissar Road, Ambala City through its Proprietor/Partner.

2.       M/s Bridgestone India(P) Ltd. C/o Walia Tyres, Opp, Anaj Mandi, Hssar Road, Ambala City through its Director.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender  Kumar, Member.               

                   Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:       Sh. Kamlesh Batra, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Pardeep Batra, counsel for OP No.1.

Sh. Arun Batra, counsel for OP No.2.

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased two tyres of Bridgestone India(P) Limited  having description 165 65 R 14 5322 from the  OP No.1 vide Bill No.OMW1551 dated 21.10.2015 for Rs. 7600/- for his car which were being manufactured by the OP No.2 with one year warranty. The above said tyres were fitted by the OP No.1 in the car of the complainant. After about 10 days the complainant was surprised to see that there were three cuts in one tyre. He immediately contacted the Ops. The cuts have been developed due to manufacturing defect in the tyre being manufactured by OP No.2 and the complainant requested the Ops to replace  the tyre but the Ops are avoiding  the same on one pretext or the other despite repeated requests  and visits of the complainant. The complainant also served a registered AD legal notice dated 27.11.2015 upon the Op. Due to acts of omission and commission on the part of Ops, the complainant has suffered mental tension & torture, harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable and not come with clean hands in the court.  On merits, the counsel for OP stated that OP No.1 assured the complainant for replacing  the tyre in the condition of any manufacturing defect only in the alleged tyre as per warranty policy  of the tyre  company i.e. OP No.2 which was supplied to the complainant  at the time of purchase of  the tyre i.e. on 21.10.2015 with the bill. They also stated that on 07.12.2015, the technical Engineer of OP No.2, Mr. Deepak Singh visited Ambala and inspected the said tyre  thoroughly in the presence of representative of the complainant  who brought the said tyre for inspection and who refused to sign  on the claim form. After duly inspecting the tyres, it was reported by the Technical Engineer Mr. Deepak Singh that the said tyre was having “Sidewall and shoulder cut penetration due to some external object hitted and the tyre is repaired using patch  method hence no manufacturing defect”. Since damage was not due to any manufacturing defect, the claim of the complainant was rejected and inspection report dated 07.12.2015 was generated by Mr. Deepak Singh and the copy of the same was supplied to the representative of the complainant at the same time.  It is pertinent to mention here that as per damage reported in the report of Technical Engineer, it shows that the said tyre was used and maintained by the complainant negligently as well as avoiding recommendations of the Car and tyre manufacturer and due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the said trye was damaged by sharp external object from the side wall and shoulder. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A with documents as annexure C-1 to C-3 and close his evidence. On the other hands,  counsel for Ops tendered affidavits as Annexure R-A & Annexure R-B with documents as annexure R-1 to C-8 and close their

 evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file. Admittedly, COMPLAIAN has purchased two tyres from OP No.1 vide bill dated 25.10.2015 for amounting Rs. 7600/. Main grievance of the complainant is that after about 10 days the complainant found that there were cuts in one tyre and for this purpose he approached to the OP No.1 to rectify/replace the above said tyre but OP No.1 has contacted the OP No.2 i.e. manufacturer and OP No.2 had sent their engineer namely Deepak Kumar who inspected the tyre in question and made the report Annexure R-1 dated 07.12.2015 and found that “Sidewall & shoulder cut penetration due to some external object hitted and tyre is repaired using patch method. No manufacturing defect found” but the complainant did not satisfy with the report and did not sign the report as per averments of the OP. The complainant had served the notice upon OP No.1 on 27.11.2015 alleged that the cuts develop in the one tyre due to manufacturing defect and  request to replace the tyre but the Ops did not short out the problem of the complainant.

5.                          During the proceedings of the complaint, Ops has moved an application u/s 13(1(c) of CP Act and prayed to this Forum to sent the defective tyre to appropriate Government recognized laboratory . Accordingly, this Forum has sent the defective tyre vide order dated 21.11.2016 to the Government Laboratory namely Rubber Research Institute of India, Rubber Board, P.O.Kotttayam-686009, Kerala for inspection of tyre in question on the point that  tyre having any  manufacturing defect or not. This Forum has received the report from the Government Laboratory dated 21.03.2018.  Perusal of the report it is mentioned that that tyre in question is repaired one and cause of failure could not judge. “No major physical damage was seen on the tyre and they further observed that repair work on the tyre was done on two portions. Patch work done inside the tyre is shown in Photograph 2 & 3 and the patch work done outside. Tyre tread groove depth at the middle portion is about 0.6mm. This indicated that the tyre was in used for a considerable period/distance though not to the full extent. Tyre sidewall showed a uniform hardness of 54 Shore A and the read showed uniform hardness of 70 Shore A. These values are in the normal range of a passenger car tyre”.

6.                Both the parties have not filed any objection on the above said  report. It is settled law onus is on the complainant   to  prove that tyre  which  had got three cuts suffered from manufacturing defect. No such evidence however lead by the complainant. There cannot be any presumption of manufacturing defect. Merely because the tyre in question sidewall and shoulder  cut penetration within 10 days of the purchase of the tyres. Even, new tyre may cut if it hit by a sharp object on its sides. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the tyre which has got cut only due to manufactured defect. Perusal of the report it is clear that repair work on the tyre was done on two portions and patch work done outside the tyre. Although, the report received from the Government Laboratory does not support the case of the complainant. Counsel for the Ops relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case title Bridgestone India Private Vs. Liyakathali Kormath & Ors decided on 18.04.2016 is applicable to the facts of the present case.

7.                In view of the above discussion, the expert of te Government Laboratory has not found any manufacturing defect in the tyre in question. So we cannot hold any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. In this way the complainant has failed to prove his case. Accordingly, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 26.04.2018

                    

 

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)       (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)          (D.N. ARORA)

Member                          Member                                 President