DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB          : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Wednesday the 23^rd day of August 2023

C.C.273/2010

Complainant

Rajesh.M,

S/o.(Late) Adv.P.U.Sivasankaran Nair,

“Jyothi”,

Anni Hall Road, Nagaram Amsom,

Kozhikode.

(By Adv.Sri.M.Jayadeep)

Opposite Parties

1. The Proprietor

Mukkam Tyres,

Near English church,

Manorama Junction, Wayanad Road,

            Kozhikode.

2. The Manager

Sales & Marketing, Head Office,

Bridgestone India Private Limited,

Plot No.5/4, 5^th Floor,

Shalimar Onyx (Mirchandani Park),

Off Anderi Kurla Road Sakinaka,

Anderi (East), Mumbai – 400 072.

3. The Managing Director

Bridgestone India Private Limited,

Plot No.12, Kheda Growth Centre,

Post Sagore, Pithampur III S.O,

District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh – 454 774.

( OP 1,2 & 3 - By Adv.Sri.N.K.sanath Kumar)

4. The Manager

Bridgestone India Private Limited,

1/90, Dawood Chambers,

Butt Road, West Hill-P.O,

Calicut – 673 005.

ORDER

By Smt.PRIYA . S - MEMBER 

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant purchased a car tyre from opposite party No.1 and that the said tyre when run 1000kms developed a bulging on the right side of the tyre having a diameter of 3 inches and another small one having a diameter of 1.5cm.  On removal of the tube it is seen that the steel belted radial is exposed and there is no rubber coating at the spot wherein the bulging is noted. Though the complainant made requests to replace the tyre with another, the opposite parties tried to create unruly scene to avoid this complainant from claiming for another and had insisted this complainant to pay 70% of the value of the tyre intended for replacing which meant that the opposite parties were ready to give a discount of 30% for purchase of tyre.  The complainant was not amenable for the suggestion as put forth by the opposite parties (1 to 4) because the defect noted on the tyre is a manufacturing defect and all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss or to replace the same with another.  The complainant had run the car with the tyre purchased from the first opposite party for less than 1000kms and the life of a good tyre is 10 to 20 times or perhaps more than that.  The other 3 tyres fitted to the car wheels on road were in perfect condition, which is older than the tyre mentioned above.  The complainant at the time of purchase and changing of tyre had checked the wheel balancing and alignment.

3.  The complainant had sustained loss and injury due to the defiant attitude of the opposite parties.  The attitude of the opposite parties is unfair trade practice and they never considered the plight of the customers.  Several times the complainant was asked to carry the tyre to places of their choice for checkup and on that account as well complainant had spent hundred rupees by hiring auto-rickshaw.  Finally the complainant was forced to send lawyer notice severally.  On the request of opposite parties the complainant had to take the tyre at least for 3 times on different dates according to the whims and fancies of the opposite parties.  The complainant had to suffer for no purpose what so ever.  Strange conclusions are made in their inspection.  It was not done scientifically.  Hence the complainant wants to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the tyre so damaged due to manufacturing defect and to pay a compensation of Rs.21,000/-.

4.  According to the opposite parties they cannot be held liable unless there is any manufacturing defect in the tyre.  If the complainant is alleging defect in the goods, he has to invoke the procedure as contemplated under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act for sending the damaged tyre to a recognized laboratory to determine its function and quality.  The complainant purchased the tyre from the 1^st opposite party.  Bulging and exposure of steel belted radial etc had occurred as a result of nail penetration in the steel belted radial and the rubber coating at the spot was removed due to the running of the damaged tyre without inflation pressure.

5.  The allegation of manufacturing defect of the tyre is strongly denied by the opposite parties.  Opposite parties’ Service Engineer as per the request of the complainant visited and inspected the damaged tyre and found as ‘run flat failure’, i.e, running the tyre at low or zero inflation pressure.  Nail penetration damaged the tube inside and resulted in sudden pressure leak.  Though there was no manufacturing defect in the complaint tyre, the technical service engineer considered complainant’s situation and offered the replacement of the tyre on 25% discount purely on ‘goodwill basis’.  But complainant was reluctant to accept.   After that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 10/03/2010 to the opposite parties for replacement of the tyre and demanding a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and notice charge of Rs.1000/-.  If the complainant makes a very serious allegation of substandard tyres, burden lies on the complainant to prove the same.  Opposite parties pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6. The points that arise for determination in this case are:

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
2. Reliefs and costs.

7. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 from the part of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B7 from the part of the opposite parties. Expert Commission was examined as CW1 and Expert Commission Report was marked as Ext C1.

8. Point No.1:  The complainant’s case is that he purchased a car tyre from opposite party No.1 and the said tyre when run 1000kms developed a bulging on the right side of the tyre having a diameter of 3 inches and another small one having a diameter of 1.5cm.  On removal of the tube it is seen that the steel belted radial is exposed and that there is no rubber coating at the spot wherein bulging is noted.  The above defect was brought to the attention of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties insisted the complainant to pay 70% of the value of the tyre intended for replacing which meant that the opposite parties were ready to give a discount of 30% for purchase of tyre.  The complainant was not amenable for the suggestion put forth by the opposite parties.  The contention of the complainant was that the defect noted on the tyre is a manufacturing defect and that all the opposite parties jointly or severally liable to compensate the loss or to replace the same with another.

9. Another contention of the complainant is that he had run the car with the tyre purchased from the 1^st opposite party for less than 1000kms and that the life of a good tyre is 10 to 20 times or perhaps more than that.  Yet another contention is that the other 3 tyres fitted to the car wheels on the road were all in perfect condition, which is older than the tyre as above mentioned purchased from 1^st opposite party.  He claims that at the time of purchase and changing the tyre had checked the wheel balancing and alignment.

10. Opposite parties’ contention is that unless there is any manufacturing defect in the tyre they cannot be held liable.  If the complainant alleges defect in goods, he has to invoke Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act for sending the damaged tyre to a recognized laboratory to determine its function and quality.

11. An Expert Commission was appointed to find out the actual state of the tyre.  On 03/11/2015 Dr.S.H.Anil Kumar, Professor & Head, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Sree Chithira Thirunnal College of Engineering, Pappanamcode, TVPM-18 was appointed as Expert Commission.  Expert Commission filed Commission Report (Ext C1 document).  The Commission Report reveals that the problem has occurred due to penetration of small object at outer side of the tyre.  Bulging of side wall is due to penetration by some sharp object of tyre shoulder damaging plycord from inside.  The cut by the sharp object had damaged the inner liner and plycord on the inner side of the tyre.  Nail penetration on the thread portion of the tyre must have damaged the tube inside and resulted in sudden pressure leak.  At low inflation pressure, side wall of tyre must have flexed and touched the edge of the penetrated sharp object.  If repeated with every rotation, it could result in the scratches on the tyre and finally damaged the plycord.  Due to large deflection on tyre side wall the inner body-ply lost its strength and it detached from the rubber.

12. The Commission Report concludes as follows;                                                                                                                                          “a)  The tyre was damafged due to penetration of small object.                                                                                                                  b)  The evidence indicate that the problem might have occurred due to penetration of small sharp object.  The tyre is the only one part which is in contact with road surface.  The tyre is therefore exposed to risk of puncture, shoulder/side wall cut due to foreign objects like nail, sharp stones etc. at every rotation.                                                                                                                                     c)  This is not a manufacturing defect.”

13. Ext C1 rules out any manufacturing defect.  On the other hand, it endorses that the problem was due to penetration of small sharp object.  There is no reason to disbelieve or discard Ext C1.

14. In Ext B1 document (Copy of warranty policy) it is very clearly mentioned that a claim for any one of the following categories are not covered by this warranty.  Among them 14(f) states that damage from road hazards eg- cut, impact damage, puncture, snag, bruise, stone drill or bulge.  So the damage in this case is not covered under warranty.  Since no manufacturing defect is established or proved the prayer for replacement of damaged tyre with a new tyre or the claim for compensation is not allowable.  However the opposite parties have offered replacement at 25% discount.  The complainant may avail the offer, if he so desires.  No unfair trade practice or deficiency of service is proved against the opposite parties.

15. To sum up, we hold that there is no proof of any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice against opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   However, the complainant is at liberty to avail the offer of replacement at 25 % discount.

16. Point No.2:     In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  However, the opposite parties shall make replacement of the damaged tyre at 25% discount, if the complainant so desires.  No order as to costs.

Pronounced in Open Commission on this, the 23^rd day of August 2023.

Date of Filing : 20/07/2010.

                                                           Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                         Sd/-

PRESIDENT                           MEMBER                               MEMBER

                                                                                          APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1 -Letter dated 10/03/2010.

Ext A2 - Letter dated 30/03/2010.

Ext A3 -Letter dated 01/05/2010 sent by Bridgestone to the complainant.

Ext A4 – Letter dated 06/04/2010.

Ext A5 - Letter dated 09/04/2010.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Ext.B1 –Copy of Warranty policy.

Ext B2 – ISO/TS 16949 Certification.

Ext B3 – Central Institute of Road Transport Certification.

Ext B4 – Bureau of Indian Standards letter for size inclusion dated 04/05/2010.

Ext B5 - Copy of Letter issue by opposite party no.4 to the complainant dated 01/05/2010.

Ext B6 – Damage mechanism for run flat.

Ext B7 – Power of Attorney in favour of Sri.M.V.Vishnu.

Commission Exhibits:

Ext C1- Commission Report.

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1 -Rajesh.M (Complainant)

Witnesses for the opposite parties:

Nil.

Witnesses for the Commission:

CW1 – Dr. S.H.Anil Kumar, Professor & Head, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Sree Chithira Thirunnal College of Engineering, Pappanamcode, TVPM-18.

​

                                                           Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                         Sd/-

PRESIDENT                           MEMBER                               MEMBER

                                                                                                                                          True copy,

                                                                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                               Assistant Registrar.