DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 240-14
Date of Institution : 5.5.2014
Date of Decision : 25.2.2015
Gurwinder Singh son of S. Nishan Singh resident of House No. 37, Gali No. 16, Gobindpura ,G.T. Road, Chheharta, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Novelty Hyundai, 57, Court Road, Amritsar through its Principal Officer/Prop/Director/Officer authorized to receive the summons
Novelty Hyundia (Div.of Novelty Association Pvt.Ltd., Near New Amritsar , G.T. Road, Amritsar 143001 through its Principal Officer/Prop/Partner
M/s. Novelty Hyundai NP 54 Developed Plot Thiru Vika Industrial Estate Ekkaduthangal, Guindy,Chennai 600032 through its Director/Managing Director/Prop/partner/Principal officer
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : In person
For the opposite party No.3 : Sh.K.K.Thakur,Adv.
For opposite parties No.1 & 2 : Sh. Mohan Arora,Adv.
-2-
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member & Sh. Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Gurwinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one Hyundai Verna car bearing Chassis No. MALCU41ULDM151108, Engine No. D4FBDU327773 from the opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. NHCR/13-14/0385 dated 13.12.2013 for a sum of Rs. 10,34,938/-. According to the complainant when the said car covered about 7000 km the two tyres of the abovesaid vehicle were swollen . The complainant lodged complaint with Novelty Hyundai near New Amritsar,G.T.Road, Amritsar i.e. opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 called the engineer from Bridgestone and checked the tyres and he lodged the report that the tyres of abovesiad car were impact bulging . Thereafter the complainant lodged complaint at Hyundai Custom centre ,who told the complainant that one tyre is being provided and other tyre is to be replaced at the responsibility of the complainant. Thereafter complainant made several requests to the opposite party to
-3-
issue new tyres but they did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace two tyres in place of swollen tyres or in the alternative to pay the costs of two new tyres amounting to Rs. 15000/-. Compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the dispute is relating to the tyres but manufacturing company of the tyres has not been impleaded as party. It was submitted that complainant had brought his car to the service centre of opposite party No.1 on10.4.2014 and complained for defects in the tyres of the car. On the requests of the complainant a letter was issued to M/s. Bridgestone Tyres company and on the same day engineers of M/s. Bridgestone Tyres Company had inspected the car and submitted its report and reported that it is not case of manufacturing defect in the tyres and as such opposite parties No.1 & 2 refused to change the tyres of the car of the complainant. It was submitted that replying opposite partiers are dealers/service centres duly authorized by Hyundai India Motord Ltd and it is the company who provided warranty to its customers. The replying opposite parties cannot change the tyres at its own and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the replying opposite parties. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
-4-
3. Opposite party No.3 in its written version has submitted that the replying opposite party has no liability for defect in tyres as the tyres originally mounted in vehicles are directly warranted by concerned wheel manufacturer i.e. Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd and the same is duly communicated to the complainant through owner's manual and service booklet at the time of sale of vehicle. The vehicle of the complainant was mounted with Bridgestone Wheels, as such Bridgestone should be impleaded as proper and necessary party to this complaint. It was submitted that after inspection it was revealed that the bulging of tyres was caused due to external impact and there was no manufacturing defect of tyres. The same report was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 11.4.2010. It was submitted that the warranty for tyres is covered by the manufacturer of the tyres and in this case Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd and not by the Hyundai Motor India Limtied. As such the complainant wrongly impleaded the Hyundai Motor India Limited as party to the complaint while Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd should be impleaded as proper and necessary party to this complaint.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of application regarding notice Ex.C-2, copy of retail invoice Ex.C-3, copy of claim application form Ex.C-4, photographs Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6.
5. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kakaria Ex.OP1,2/1, copy of report dated 10.4.2014 Ex.OP1,2/2, copy of warranty policy
-5-
Ex.OP1,2/3, copy of letter for inspectin of vehicle Ex.OP1,2/4, copy of resolution Ex.OP1,2/5, copy of attorney Ex.OP1,2/6, letter dated 11.4.2014 Ex.OP1,2/7.
6. Opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Manish Srivastava Ex.OP3/1, copy of report dated 10.4.2013 Ex.OP3/2, letter dated 11.4.2014 Ex.OP3/3, copy of
warranty policy Ex.OP3/4.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and the ld.counsel for the opposite parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and ld.counsels for the opposite parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased one Hyundai Verna car bearing Chassis No. MALCU41ULDM151108, Engine No. D4FBDU327773 from the opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. NHCR/13-14/0385 dated 13.12.2013 Ex.C-3 for a sum of Rs. 10,34,938/-. The complainant made full payment of the car to the opposite party. When the said car covered about 7000 km, two tyres of aforesaid vehicle got swollen. The complainant lodged complaint/report with Novelty Hyundai, G.T. Road, Amritsar i.e. opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 called the engineer from Bridgestone Co. manufacturer of tyres and got the tyres checked. The said engineer after inspection of the tyres submitted his report dated 10.4.2014 Ex.C-4 that the tyres of the aforesaid car have impact
-6-
bulging and as such they refused to replace the tyres. Thereafter, the complainant lodged complaint at Hyundai Customer Centre and the complainant received reply that one tyre is being provided to the complainant whereas the complainant has to replace the other tyre at his own responsibility. But the opposite party even failed to replace either of the tyrer despite so many requests made by the complainant. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. Whereas the case of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 . It is the company i.e. opposite party No.2 who provides warranty to its customers. In the present case the dispute is relating to the tyres but the manufacturing company of the tyres has not been impleaded as party to the present complaint by the complainant. The complainant brought his car to the service centre of opposite party No.1 on 10.4.2013 and complained for defects in the tyres of the car. Accordingly at the request of the complainant on the same day letter was issued to M/s. Bridgestone Tyres and on the same day engineers of M/s Bridgestone Tyres company had inspected the car of the complainant and submitted their report Ex.C-4 and rejected the claim of the complainant that it is not a case of manufacturing defect in the tyres of the car and refused to change the tyres of the car of the complainant. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 qua the -7-
complainant.
10. Whereas case of opposite party No.3 is that opposite party No.3 has no liability for defect, if any in tyres as the tyres originally mounted in vehciles are directly warranted by concerned wheel manufacturer i.e. Bridgestone India Private Limited and it has been duly communicated to the consumer through service booklet / Thus Bridgestone should have been impleaded as necessary party to the present complaint. The inspection of the tyres was carried out by the engineers of Bridgestone company on 10.4.2013 and it was revealed in that inspection report that bulging of tyre was caused due to external impact. There was no manufacturing defect of tyres. The said report was communicated to the complainant by opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 11.4.2014 Ex.OP3/3 . The vehicle of the complainant has already covered mileage of about 9500 km as on 16.6.2014. The warranty of tyres is covered by the manufacturer of the tyres, as such Bridgesone India Pvt.Ltd is a necessary party. But the complainant has not made the Bridgesone India Pvt.Ltd as party to the present complaint. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.3 qua the complainant.
11. From the entire above discussion we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased the car in question Hyundai Verna from opposite party No.1 on 13.12.2013 vide invoice Ex.C-3 for a sum of Rs. 10,34,938/- . After covering
-8-
about 7000 km only , two tyres of the aforesaid vehicle have swollen. The complainant lodged complaint with opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 called the engineer from the manufacturer of the tyres i.e. Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd. Consequently engineer from that manufacturing company of tyres inspected the tyres and submitted his report dated 10.4.2013 Ex.C-4 in which he stated that the tyres of the aforesaid car have impact bulging i.e. due to striking against hard surface. There is no manufacturing defect in the tyres in question. The complainant also sent notice in this regard to the opposite party No.2 Ex.C-2 but the opposite party did not replace the tyres of the vehicle. The complainant produced on record the photographs of the tyres of the vehicle Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 which fully prove that the tyres have swollen not due to striking against hard material i.e.due to impact bulging because there is no affect on the iron wheels of the tyres. Moreover, the tyres as is evident from the photographs Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 are swollen from the side of the tyres and not from the front of the tyres. If the tyres have swollen due to impact bulging i.e. striking against a hard material, the same would have swollen from front of the tyres and not from the side of the tyres. Further the engineer of the opposite party in his report Ex.OP1,2/2 has not tested these tyres by opening the same, so that it could mention that affect of the impact was upto the level of the wheels of the car. Resultantly this report filed by the engineer of the Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd is not based on true facts and not a
-9-
comprehensive report. Moreover, the opposite party did not examine the engineer, who submitted this report Ex.OP1,2/2/Ex.C-4 to prove this report. As such this report Ex.C-4/Ex.OP1,2/2 remained unproved on record.
12. The complainant through his affidavit Ex.C-1 has categorically stated that the car in question never struck against any hard material but the tyres had swollen due to manufacturing defect. Opposite party has not filed any application to get the tyres tested from the proper laboratory. Consequently we have come to the conclusion that these two tyres of the aforesaid car had swollen due to manufacturing defect i.e. defect in the rubber and the material used for the manufacturing company.
13. Consequently we hold that opposite party No.3 is liable to replace the two tyres in question with new one of same make and model as the same had swollen due to defect in the material used for the manufacturing of these tyres.
14. As regards the plea taken by the opposite party No.3 that Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd i.e. manufacturer of the tyres should have been made the party by the complainant in this complaint as it is the manufacturing company of tyres, who is responsibile for the replacement of the tyres in question. We do not agree with this contention of the ld.counsel for opposite party No.3 because there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd company. It was the contract between the opposite party No.3 and Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd,
-10-
company because opposite party No.3 has purchased the tyres from that Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd Company and fitted the same in the car in question . So it is opposite party No.3 who is liable for the replacement of the tyres of the car in question. However, they can claim the same from Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd as per their agreement, if any.
15. Consequently we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party No.3 is directed to replace both the tyres of the car in question with new tyres of same make and model , within one month from the date of receipt of copy of orders. Opposite party No.3 is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
16. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
25.2.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
