DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  123

                                                Instituted on:    29.03.2017             

                                              Decided on:       06.07.2017

Naresh Kumar son of Sh. Thakur Dass, Near Jai Ganesh Paint, House No.172/173, Phirni Road, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             New Hotla Tyres, Mehlan Road, Sangrur through its proprietor/partner.

2.             Bridgestone India Pvt. Limited, Registered office: Plot No.12, Kheda Growth Centre, Pithampur, Post-Segore, District Dhar (MP) through its authorised signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Sunil Sharma, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri G.P.Sharma, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Naresh Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 1 by purchasing three tyres of Bridgestone company size 155/65/31 S-322 @ Rs.3000/- each for Rs.9000/- vide bill dated 26.11.2015 for his Alto car bearing registration number PB-13-AG-0090, whereas Op number 2 is the manufacturer of the tyres in question. Further the tyres in question were having a warranty/guarantee of three years for bulging etc. was provided for the said tyres.  The grievance of the complainant is that in the first week of November, 2016, the complainant noticed that one of the tyre bearing serial number 4WVFCE01013 has bulged and as such, he immediately approached OP number 1, who checked the tyres and told that the same will be replaced with a new one, but the same was not replaced and issued a false rejection report.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs a number of times to get replaced the tyre in question and also got served a legal notice dated 28.2.2017, but of no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the defective tyre with a new one or to refund the purchase price of the tyre i.e. Rs.3000/- along with interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not legal and is baseless, frivolous and without any basis, and that if the complaint relates to any defects in the goods then proper adjudication of the complaint, test/analysis of the alleged defective goods, in the present matter the tyre, as per section 13(1) ( c ) of the CPA 1986 needs to be carried out in the interest of justice, for ascertaining the real cause of the alleged defectiveness of the tyre.  On merits, it is stated that the Op number 1 being a responsible dealer informed the complainant about the product and product warranty, but it is stated that the warranty stands only against the tyre damaged due to manufacturing defect and not against damages caused by road hazards and other external factors. It is further submitted that the Op number 1 never inspected the tyre and the contents that the OP number 1 informed the complainant about the tyre being damaged due to manufacturing defect is entirely incorrect.  It is stated further that on receipt of the complaint of the complainant by OP number 1, OP number 1 forwarded the complaint to the Service Engineer of OP number 1, so that the tyre under complaint could be technically inspected and the tyre in question was inspected on 7.12.2016 and after inspection it was reported that the tyre under claim was damaged due to impact bulge caused due to pinching of the tyre sidewall between an external hard object, unlike pathole and rim flange and the same is not attributable to the manufacturing defect, however the OPs offered the complainant a tyre at 50% discount purely on goodwill basis.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10 copies of documents etc and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2 affidavits, Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-8 copies of documents and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased three tyres for Rs.9000/- for his Alto car vide bill number 1115 dated 26.11.2015, as is evident from the copy of bill which is on record as Ex.C-2.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant lodged the complaint with the Op number 1 in November, 2016 of the tyre bearing serial number 4WVFCE01013 as it had bulged. It is also an admitted fact that after checking of the tyre in question the OPs offered 50% discount on the new tyre of the same quality, but the complainant was adamant to replace the tyre with a new one and as such has filed a complaint against the Ops.  On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that after checking of the tyre in question it was found that the tyre had damaged due to road hazards and other external factors and not due to manufacturing defect, but as a gesture of goodwill, the OPs offered 50% discount on the new tyre of the same quality, despite the fact that damage was not attributable to manufacturing defect rather the same was due to impact bulge caused due to pinching of the tyre sidewall between an external hard object. The complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the tyre in question was damaged due to any manufacturing defect therein.  Ex.C-6 is the copy of claim application form, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the damage of the tyre is not due to any manufacturing defect. It is worth mentioning here that if there would have been any manufacturing defect in the tyre, then all the three tyres purchased at a time would have developed defect. But, there is no such situation there in the present case.  As such, we feel that since the OPs had offered 50% discount on purchase of a new tyre as a gesture of goodwill is sufficient one, but the complainant did not accept it without assigning any reason and straight way filed the present complaint. Accordingly, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to refund to the complainant 50% price of the tyre in question.

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1500/-.  In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 6, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member