BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Gurpreet Singh, s/o Late Sh.Kartar Singh, r/o #236, First Floor,

Sector 37-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

The Authorized Dealer (Jasjit Singh), The United Auto Centre, SCF No. 4, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM: SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                    MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Manmohan Singh, Adv. for complainant.

OP exparte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant had purchased four Bridgestone Radial Tyres from OP on 15.03.2009 vide invoice no. 13505 dated 15.03.2009 for the amount of Rs.16,000/-. While fitting the said tyres, the alignment and the wheel balancing was got done from authorized dealer i.e. Punjab Tyres, Sector 22, Chandigarh.  During the warranty period itself, after covering 2000 kms only, the said tyres got damaged. The matter was informed to the OP, on which the tyres were checked by the engineer of the OP.  On the suggestion of the said  engineer, on 03.06.2009, the complainant again got alignment of the tyres checked from Berkley Auto Care and the alignment of the tyres was found O.K. Despite various visits to OP, for replacement of the damaged tyres, being under warranty period, the OP had flatly refused to replace them.  A legal notice dated 03.07.2009 was also sent to the OP regarding the above fact but all in vain. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.               Notice was served to the OP. The owner of the OP filed his written statement on 18.02.2010.  After that none appeared on behalf of the OP.  Accordingly the OP was proceeded ex-parte. 

3.            In their written reply the OP submitted that the complainant had not impleaded manufacturing company of the tyres as a necessary party.  The manufacturing company was alone liable to pay damages or exchange the damaged tyres. Otherwise also, the tyres were got damaged due to the faulty wheel balancing and realignment done by Punjab Tyres, Sector 22, Chandigarh.  There was no manufacturing defect in the tyres. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.             The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the  complainant and have also perused the record. 

6.              The main grouse of the complainant is that he purchased four Bridgestone Radial Tyres from OP on 15.03.2009 but the said tyres got damaged within the warranty period, that too, after covering 2000 kms only. When he approached the OP for replacement of the damaged tyres, being under warranty period, the OP refused to replace the same. On the other hand the contention of the OP is that the Punjab Tyres, Sector 22, Chandigarh has done a faulty wheel balancing and misalignment of the vehicle due to which the said tyres got damaged. So, as per the conditions of warranty card, the said defect was not a manufacturing defect and they are not liable to replace the same. 

7.            In support of his contentions, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-2, which shows that he has got the wheel balancing and alignment of his vehicle done on 15.03.2009(the date on which the tyres were purchased). Annexure C-3 also shows that the complainant again took his vehicle to Berkeley Automobiles Ltd., Industrial Area, Chandigarh on  03.06.2009  for wheel balancing and alignment of his vehicle. In addition to this the complainant has also submitted photographs of the damaged tyres, showing extensive damage to the same. The contention of the OP that there was a faulty wheel balancing and misalignment is not supported by any cogent evidence nor any affidavit of any technical expert has been placed on record by the OP to challenge the report of Punjab Tyres, Sector 22, Chandigarh, (Annexure C-2), to prove that  the wheel balancing and alignment were faulty. Hence, the bald assertions of the  OP without any cogent/documentary evidence cannot be taken into consideration to falsify the contentions of the complainant. From the above facts it is clear that the tyres in question were got damaged during the warranty period and if the same were not replaced by the OP, it had caused not only harassment to the complainant but was also a source of mental agony and pain because even after spending a huge sum of money for purchasing four brand new tyres from OP, he has not been able to make use of it.  In our opinion, the tyres were under the warranty period and  the OP was bound to replace it, if these got damaged during the said period, which they failed to do and rather forced the complainant for this unwanted litigation.  After filing the written statement, the OP has not been attending the Forum and also not controverted any of the contentions of the complainant, as no body appeared after service and was proceeded against exparte, which shows that OP has nothing to say in his defence beyond its written statement against the forceful arguments of the complainant. The complainant had even served a notice Annexure C-5 on the OP but in spite of that they did not replace the defective tyres,  causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant for which they would be liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

8.             Keeping in view the above detailed analysis of the case, in our considered opinion the present complaint has a lot of merit, weight and substance and it must succeed.  We, therefore, decide the complaint in favour of the complainant and against OP and pass the following directions :-

a.      The OP shall replace all the four defective tyres with brand new tyres of same brand & size and supply it to the complainant with fresh warranty as per company rules.

b.       The OP shall further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing physical harassment, mental agony  and pain to the complainant.

c.       The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

              The aforesaid order be complied by the OP within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which they OP would be liable to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- alongwith penal interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 27.11.2009, till all the four defective tyres are replaced with new ones, besides paying the cost of litigation of Rs.2500/-.

                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.