BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.892-12

Date of Institution:13-12-2012

Date of Decision:03-03-2015

Gurdial Singh son of S.Gurdit Singh, of 1830 Shashtri Nagar, Majitha Road, Amritsar. 

Complainant

Versus

1. Sales and Marketing Head Office Bridgestone India Private Limited, 5/4, 5^th Floor Shalimar ONYX (Mirchandenu Park) Office Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East Mumbai 400072.
2. Quck Fit Tyres Autocare Centre, 8-9, A Block Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Rajat Anand, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Gurdial Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased two tyres bearing serial Nos.CDA 1909 and CDA 3309 (195/70R14RE88 Botanza 7L) for a  total sum of Rs.7100/- from Opposite Party No.2 vide cash memo No.916 dated 4.11.2009. Complainant alleges that the tyres so purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party No.2 became unfit after running only 33336 kilometers. When the tyres in question became defective, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 either to replace the  same or to pay the claim compensation, but the Opposite Party No.2 neither replaced the same nor paid any claim and compensation.   Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party  to pay compensation of Rs.10000/- (Rs.7100/- the costs of bill of tyres in question+ Rs.2900/- as compensation).
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that  on receiving the complaint from the complainant, the Opposite Party No.2 communicated about the complaint to the service engineer of Opposite Party No.1 so that the tyres could be technically inspected. On 10.8.2011, Technical Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.1 inspected the tyre bearing serial No.CAD1909 and after  duly inspecting the same it was reported that  damage in the tyre was due to tread deformation i.e. cut on the tread which caused rusting of steel belts resulting in weakening of adhesion between the tread rubber and belt cords. Steel belts can get rusted due to dirt/ moisture entering the belt through the cuts on tyre tread, such kind of damage being not attributable to manufacturing defect, thereby the claim for  replacement of tyre was rejected. Cut mark was also visible on the tread of the tyre. It is further submitted that on receipt of anther complaint with regard to tyre bearing serial No.3309, on 6.12.2012, Technical Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.1 inspected the said tyres in the presence of  the complainant at the shop of Opposite Party No.2. After duly inspecting the tyre, it was reported that damage in the tyres was due to runflat, i.e. running on zero/ low inflation pressure which resulted in side wall bulge as the plycords were damaged due to excessive heat generation inside tyre chamber.  Abrasion mark on the tyre sidewall was also noted by the Technical Service Engineer. Such kind of  damage being not attributable to manufacturing defect, thereby the claim of the complainant was rejected. Inspection report was generated, but the complainant refused to take the same in frustration of his claim being rejected and went away with the inspected tyre. Since the tyres were not damaged due to manufacturing defect, the role of Opposite Parties ended. Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that if the complainant alleges defect in the tyres and not satisfied with the inspection done by the qualified Technical Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.1, then the actual cause of damage in the tyres could be proved only by a laboratory test. Without such a test, the complainant being not the technical expert, can not  reach to the conclusion for any defect in the tyres.   While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and affidavit of Prince Kumar Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence the documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and affidavit Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant  purchased two tyres bearing serial Nos.CDA 1909 and CDA 3309 (195/70R14RE88 Botanza 7L) for a  total sum of Rs.7100/- from Opposite Party No.2 manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 vide cash memo No.916 dated 4.11.2009 Ex.C1 with warranty of 3 years Ex.C2. Complainant alleges that these tyres became unfit after running only 33336 kilometers on 21.7.2011 and the complainant had to purchase two more tyres vide memo No.163 on 21.7.2011. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 either to replace the  same or to pay the claim compensation, but the Opposite Party No.2 flatly refused to accede to the request of the complainant.  Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite parties jointly is that on  receipt of the complaint from the complainant regarding damage in tyre bearing serial No.1909, the Opposite Party No.2 had informed the complainant that the tyres manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 are governed by Bridgestone Warranty Policy.  Opposite Party No.2 communicated about the complaint to the service engineer of Opposite Party No.1 so that the tyres could be technically inspected. On 10.8.2011, Technical Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.1 inspected the tyre bearing serial No.CAD1909 and reported that  damage in the tyre was due to tread deformation i.e. cut on the tread which caused rusting of steel belts resulting in weakening of adhesion between the tread rubber and belt cords. Steel belts can get rusted due to dirt/ moisture entering the belt through the cuts on tyre tread, such kind of damage being not attributable to manufacturing defect, thereby the claim for  replacement of tyre was rejected. On receipt of another complaint from the complainant with regard to tyre bearing serial No.3309, on 6.12.2012, Technical Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.1 inspected the said tyre in presence of  the complainant at the shop of Opposite Party No.2 and submitted his report  Ex.OP2 to the effect that damage in the tyre was due to runflat, i.e. running on zero/ low inflation pressure which resulted in side wall bulge as the plycords were damaged due to excessive heat generation inside tyre chamber.  Abrasion mark on the tyre sidewall was also noted by the Technical Service Engineer. Such kind of  damage being not attributable to manufacturing defect, thereby the claim of the complainant was rejected. Inspection report was generated, but the complainant refused to take the same in frustration of his claim being rejected and went away with the inspected tyre. Since the tyres were not damaged due to manufacturing defect, so the Opposite Parties  were not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties further submitted that when the tyres run at very low inflation pressure, it causes the continuous flexing of sidewall and friction between tyre and rim due to which high heat is generated inside the tyre chamber resulting in breaking/ melting of plycords as well as inner plies. Further due to running at law or zero inflation pressure, the total load comes on tyre sidewalls and it damages the plycord.  Such damages are not treated as manufacturing defect and such like damages can be avoided if driver maintains proper  inflation pressure as  recommended by Vehicle manufacturer. The Opposite Parties  also produced on record Technical Service Manual of Opposite Party No.1 for Runflat & Tread Deformation Ex.OP6. Opposite Parties  also filed affidavit of Sh.Deepak Makkar, Technical Service Engineer of Bridgestone India Private Limited Ex.OP7 who inspected the tyres and stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres in question.   Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. It may be mentioned here that the complainant produced on record  the affidavit of Sh.Prince Kumar son of  Narinder Kumar, Expert (Ex.C3), who examined the tyres in question and submitted that tyres became defective not due to running of tyres or any fault on the part of the driver, but these tyres have manufacturing defect.  The Opposite Parties  also moved an application dated 13.3.2014 before this Forum for sending the tyres in question to appropriate laboratory for testing and the counsel for the Opposite Parties  stated that Opposite Parties  are ready to bear the expenses for conducting the proper test of the tyres at appropriate laboratory. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties  was also directed to give list of laboratories and hence, the Opposite Parties  supplied the list of the approved laboratories. Resultantly, on the request of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties, it was ordered by this Forum vide order dated 30.5.2014 that the tyres in question be sent to International Centre of Automotive Technology (ICAT), Plot No. 26, Sector 3, HSIIDC, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana for tyre test at the expenses of the Opposite Parties , but the Opposite Parties  neither deposited the expenses nor took the tyres to the aforesaid laboratory, rather this Forum has deputed Sh.Vikram, Ahlmad of this Forum to deposit the samples i.e. two tyres in question of Bridgestone Company in duly sealed condition at appropriate laboratory at Gurgaon, Haryana, but the Opposite Parties  did not deposit the fee nor assisted this Forum to send the tyres in question to the aforesaid laboratory for test and report.
9. So, from the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved that the complainant purchased the tyres in question from Opposite Party No.2 manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 on 4.11.2009 vide Invoice Ex.C1 for Rs.7100/- which were fitted in the vehicle of the complainant on 4.11.2009. These tyres have warranty of 3 years, copy of which is Ex.C2. But these tyres became defective and unfit after running only 33336 KM within two years. When the Opposite Parties  were approached by the complainant, they got tested the tyres from Technical Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.1 on 10.8.2011 and 6.12.2011. However, the Opposite Parties  did not produce the report dated 10.8.2011. Whereas in the report dated 6.12.2011 Ex.OP2, the said Technical Service Engineer has pointed out that the second tyre bearing  serial No.3309 was damaged due to runflat, i.e. running on zero/ low inflation pressure. But in this report, Technical Service Engineer of the Opposite Parties  did not mention as to how the vehicle could run with low or zero inflation pressure. Moreover, the complainant is taxi driver and it can not be expected that he was running his taxi/ vehicle with low or zero inflation pressure whereas the first report dated 10.8.2011 has not been produced by the Opposite Parties  to prove that the damage in the tyre bearing serial No. 1909 was due to tread deformation as alleged by the Opposite Parties. So, it stands fully proved on record that the tyres became unfit  for running within 2 years i.e. from 4.11.2009 to 21.7.2011 when the complainant has to purchase other two tyres for his vehicle and got the same fitted because the tyres in question purchased  from the Opposite Party No.2 became defective and unfit for running. The warranty of these tyres was 3 years. The Opposite Parties  even after filing of the application to get tested the tyres in question in appropriate laboratory, neither deposited the test fee of laboratory nor assisted this Forum to  take the tyres to the said laboratory nor deposited the freight charges, etc. So, all this fully proves that the Opposite Party No.1 is certainly in deficient of service towards the complainant. As such, the complainant is entitled to compensation.
10. As regard compensation, the complainant has used the tyres in question for about 2 years after running 33336 KM and same became defective/ unfit within two years, whereas the warranty of these tyres  was 3 years and the complainant has filed the present complaint for compensation.
11. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint and the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  The tyres in question which were deposited by the complainant in this Forum for test, is ordered to be given to the complainant against  proper receipt.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 03-03-2015.                                                 

hrg