C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:
The complainant purchased two Bridgestone tyres having size 205/65 R for his innova Car on 22-11-2008 by paying Rs. 9,600/- Among the said tyres, the tyre bearing serial No. CEJ 4208 got damaged within a short period. The damage is the extensive outside wearing of a particular portion of the tyre. The matter was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party and they sent it to the 1st opposite party. Instead of replacing the defective tyres, they rejected the claim stating that no manufacturing defect to the tyre. The out side wear of a portion of tyre within a short period of purchase, is due to manufacturing defect. Moreover, the other tyre purchased on the same day is not having any defect. The complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 4,800/- the price of the tyre with interest and Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation for the supply of the defective tyre from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
2. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:
The purchase of two car tyres is admitted by the first opposite party. The allegation in the complaint that the damage caused to one tyre due to manufacturing defect in tyre is absolutely false and denied. Sri. M.V. Vishnu, Engineer, Technical Service Department of 1st opposite party has inspected the tyre of complainant bearing serial no. CEJ 4208 size 205/65R15 at the laboratory of the first opposite party at Ernakulam and found that there is one side wear and it is not due to any defect in the tyre. The result was communicated to the ;complainant through the 2nd opposite party. And the 2nd opposite party in turn returned the tyre to the complainant and handed over the claim advice letter no. 219203 dated 25/3/09 to the complainant. It was clearly found that the damage to the tyre was not due to any manufacturing defect in the tyre. Complainant is not entitled for the price of the tyre or any other sum from the 1st opposite party. The rejection of complainant’s claim was on valid grounds. The tyre manufactured and supplied by the first opposite party are subjected to gregarious quality control test as per Standards prescribed by Beuro of Indian Standards AIS:044 (part 2) :2004 in the production line in the factory of first opposite party at Pithampur, Madhyapradesh. And further CIRT, Pune has certified the quality of the tyre size 205/65R15. Hence the contrary allegations of manufacturing defect in the tyre is false and hence denied.
3. The complainant and the 1st opposite party 1 represented through the counsel. 2nd opposite party did not appear in the Forum despite service of notice. Complainant adduced only documentary evidence. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. DW1 was examined on the side of the 1st opposite party and documents Exts. B1 to B3 were marked. Both sides filed argument notes. Thereafter we have heard the respective counsel.
3. The points that arose for our determinations are as follows.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the tyre?
ii. Compensation and costs if any?
4. Points Nos. i&ii. It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the tyre in question. According to the complainant he bought two tyres out of which one tyre got damaged within 3 months from the date of purchase. The same was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. Complainant alleges that the defect of the tyre is due to the manufacturing defect.
The 1st opposite party averred that the said tyre has been examined by their engineer Mr. M.V. Vishnu at their laboratory and found that there is one side wear and the defect is not due to any manufacturing defect.
Ext. A1 is the retail invoice and A2 is the warranty card. The complainant purchased the disputed tyre on 21-11-2008 as per the said documents. Through Ext. A3 claim application the defect intimated to the 2nd opposite party on 25-3-2009. Seemingly the defect has been occurred within a short span of time. The 1st opposite party averred that after examination of the disputed tyre which was returned to the complainant along with Ext. B2 report. But the complainant failed to send the same to the appropriate laboratory to examine it. But there is no evidence before us to show that the tyre in question was returned to the complainant. As per Ext. B2 and deposition of DW1 it is evident that there is no manufacturing defect in the disputed tyre. The complainant alleges that Ext. B2 report is not reliable since it was prepaired by the opposite party’s unqualified engineer. The counsel for the complainant relied on the decision rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in MRF Limited Vs. Sandipan Kishanrao Deshmukh & Anr (1 (2008) CPJ 165 (NC) held that “ We are of the opinion that having raised the plea in written version that damage to the tyre was due to concussion it was for the petitioner to have proved that plea”.
But no evidence is before us to show that the DW1 the service engineer, is qualified enough for conducting the test. Moreover Ext. B2 is a Unilateral report prepared by DW1 who is an employee of the opposite parties. Therefore we are of the opinion that Ext. B2 report is unreliable. In view of the above we come to the conclusion that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Hence 1st opposite party is liable to refund the price of the tyre in question with interest. We are not ordering any compensation since we have already allowed refund of the price with interest. Nevertheless complainant is entitled to get litigation cost from the opposite parties. Consequently, we allow the complaint and order as follows:
The 1st opposite party shall refund Rs. 4,800/- being the price of the tyre in question along with 6% interest from the day fixed for compliance of this order till realization. Opposite parties jointly shall also and severally pay Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of November 2010
