Punjab

Sangrur

CC/284/2016

M/s Ganesh Traders - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor/partner - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Parmjit Singh Mann

15 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                              

                                                Complaint No.  284

                                                Instituted on:    09.02.2016

                                                Decided on:       15.09.2016

 

M/s. Ganesh Traders, Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its proprietor Surinder Gupta son of Shri Santosh Kumar, resident of H.No.19, JP Colony, Sangrur (owner of Verna Card No. PB-13-AH-0002).

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

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

2.             Bridgeston India Private Limited, Factory Office: Plot No.12, Kheda Growth Centre, Pithampur, Post Sagore-454774, District Dhar (MP) through its authorised signatory.

3.             Bridgeston India Private Limited, Registered office: Plot No.A-43, Phase-II, MIDC Chakan, Village Sawardari, Taluka Khed, District Pune, Maharashtra-410501 through its authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :               Shri P.S.Mann, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri Gurinder Pal, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             M/s.Ganesh Traders, Sangrur through its proprietor Surinder Gupta 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 purchased four tyres (size 195-55-16) from the OP number 1 for Rs.27,200/- vide bill dated 30.12.2014 for his car bearing registration number PB-13-AH-0002 with three years warranty of same from the date of its purchase, as such the complainant changed the tyres and at that time the meter reading of the car was 75000 KM.  The case of the complainant is that in the first week of October, 2015 the complainant noticed that all the tyres got bulged and as such the complainant approached the OP number 1, who got checked the tyres from the expert of OP number 2 and 3 and after checking the OPs rejected one tyre due to the reason best known to the OP and demand Rs.3932/- for the replacement of another tyre, but the remaining two tyres were not checked by the OPs.  It is further alleged that the tyres became defective during the warranty period, but the OPs did nothing despite approaching the complainant so many times. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the defective tyres with new one or to refund the purchase price  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the vehicle in question is being used for commercial purposes, that the complaint is baseless, frivolous and has been filed with ulterior motive, that the complainant has not got attested the defective goods as per the section 13(1)        ( c )&(d) of the CPA 1986.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased four tyres from OP number 1. It has been stated further that the warranty stands only against the tyre damaged due to manufacturing defect and not against damages caused by road hazards and other external operational factors. It is further stated that on receipt of the complaint of the damages tyres from the complainant, the technical service engineer visited the OP number 1 and did the inspection of two Bridgeston tyres of size 195/55R16 TL of pattern B250 bearing serial number 4WCFN4714 and after inspection it was found that the first tyre bulge caused due to the severe impact by blunt object on sidewall resulting in damage to inner plycords and no manufacturing defect was there and in the second tyre sidewall got pinched between the rim flange and potholes causing damage to plycords and found no manufacturing defect therein. However, due to brand loyalty, the OP offered the replacement of the tyres at a discounted value of Rs.3932/- purely on goodwill basis.  However, any manufacturing defect in the tyre is denied.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bill, Ex.C-2 copy of warranty card, Ex.C-3 copy of job card, Ex.C-4 copy of job card,  Ex.C-5 expert report, Ex.C-6 copy of RC, Ex.C-7 copy of receipt, Ex.C-8 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-9 affidavit of expert, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-18 are the photographs and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of warranty card, Ex.Op-2 copy of report dated 28.6.2016 and Ex.OP-3 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

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

 

5.               Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of four number Bridgestone tyres for Rs.27,200/- for the car bearing registration number PB-13-AH-0002 vide bill dated 30.12.2014, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the tyres in question and availed the services of the OP number 1.

 

6.             In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that after purchase of the tyres in question i.e. in the month of October, 2015, the complainant noticed that all the four tyres  bulged and as such the complainant approached the Op number 1 for checking the same from the Ops number 2 and 3.  It is an admitted fact that on the request of the complainant, the OP number 1 got checked two tyres from Ops number 2 and 3 vide job sheets number 544084 and 544083, which are on record as Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4.  It is on record that after checking of two tyres the OPs found that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyres and the first tyre bulged due to severe impact by blunt object on sidewall resulting in damage to inner plycords and in the second tyre the OPs have stated that the sidewall got pinched between the rim flange and potholes causing damage to plycords and there was no manufacturing defect. But, we are unable to go with this contention of the OPs that the tyres are not having any manufacturing defect. Further the Ops have also produced on record the report of the tyres as Ex.OP-2, which shows that the same has been prepared by Shri Nitin Bakshi, Sr. Engineer, Bridgestone India Private Limited, whose qualification is BE (Mechanical), whereas the qualified person who can check the tyres in question should be a chemical engineer. Moreover, we further feel that it is obvious that the tyres in question have been got checked by the OPs at their own and they will give the report in its favour alleging fault on the part of the complainant and that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyres. On the other hand, we have also perused the photographs produced by the complainant on record as Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-18, which clearly reveals that the same have been damaged during the warranty period of one year of its purchase, whereas the warranty was of three years. The Ops have not produced any independent cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the tyres were damaged due to any blunt and sharp object or the tyres damaged due to the own fault of the complainant.  As such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to replace the two tyres of the complainant with a new one, as the tyres suffered damage during the very first year of its purchase as the warranty of the same was three years, which is evidence from the copy of warranty card on record as Ex.C-2.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to replace two tyres of the complainant with new one. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 15, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                  (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Member