DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 08^th day of March, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member         Date of filing: 03/12/2021                             

CC/223/2021

Abdul Khader @ Bava

S/o Bapu, Kalarikkal House

Ottapalam, Palakkad                                            -         Complainant

(By Adv. K.R.Santhosh Kumar)                             

                                                           V/s

1. The Manager

    Bridge stone Track Tyre & Care

    Bridge Stone Compex, Coimbatore Road

Kunnathur Medu, Palakkad

2. Bridge Stone Track Tyre & Care

    Rep. by its Manager

    Bridge Stone Complex

    Coimbatore Road, Kunnathur Medu

Palakkad                                                                -         Opposite parties

(1^st and 2^nd opposite parties by Adv. M/s C.P.Pramod

 and P.Muralidharan)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.   Pleadings of the complainant in brief

      On 14/11/2019, the complainant purchased 4 tyres of Bridge stone; company of size 18/65/15 from the opposite party for his vehicle.  He bought the tyres on the assurance given by the opposite party that it can be used upto 40,000 kilometres.  They assured about its quality and promised to replace it in case of any defect to the tyres.  But the tyres were completely worn out when the vehicle had completed 22,000 kilometres and it is due to its low quality.  When the complainant approached the opposite party with this complaint, they did not care to attend his problem.  The conduct of the opposite parties had caused great mental agony and stress to the complainant and they are liable to compensate the complainant for that.

          The complainant caused to issue a Lawyer notice on 31/10/2021 and the opposite party had received it on 06/11/2021.  But they did not send reply to the notice or replace the defective tyres. 

          So this complaint is filed to get an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective tyres with new one or to refund Rs. 21,600/- being the cost of the tyres with 12% interest and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the litigation.        

2.   Complaint was admitted and notice issued to the opposite party.  The opposite party appeared and filed their version.  The opposite party in their version contended that the complainant has not included the manufacturer of the tyres, M/s Bridge stone India in the party array and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  The other allegations in the complaint are denied by the opposite parties.  The complainant has not approached the opposite party for wheel balancing or wheel rotation in connection with the maintenance of the tyres.  The tyres has to be serviced and replaced after the vehicle had run 10,000 kilometres.  The opposite party had registered the complaint about the wearing out of the tyres and on inspection, they could not find any manufacturing defect in the tyres.  It is only due to the use of the tyres.  There is no warranty for normal wear and tear.  Complainant is using the same tyres and has not produced the tyres for further inspection.  The opposite party had sent reply notice stating true facts.  They are only dealers of Bridge stone company; the manufacturer and any complaints relating to the tyres has to be informed directly to the manufacturer.

3.   From the pleadings of both parties, the following points were framed for consideration

1. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether the alleged defects in the tyres are due to normal wear and tear and due to non-maintenance and non-servicing?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
4.  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs?
5. Reliefs if any as cost and compensation.

4.   Complainant has failed to file proof affidavit or mark any documents even after several postings being given.  So his evidence is closed.  Opposite party also did not file proof affidavit.  So the complaint is taken for orders based on merits. 

5.  Point No: 1

      Opposite party in the version had raised the contention that manufacturer of the tyres, Bridge stone company is not included in the party array and so the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

          Complainant has purchased the tyres from the opposite party, dealer and for any defects/complaints in the tyre, he can very well approach the opposite party.  The opposite party as the dealer has to contact the manufacturer and solve the issue.  Further, it is for the complainant to decide whom all are to be made party.  Point No: 1 is decided accordingly.   

6.  Point No: 2

      As per the complaint, complainant purchased 4 tyres from the opposite party on the assurance given by the staff that it will cover upto 40,000 kilometres and if any defect is caused to the tyres, they promised to replace it. 

           But the tyres were completely worn out when the vehicle had run 22,000 kilometres and it is due to the substandard quality of the tyres.

7.   Opposite party in their version countered the allegation and stated that they have not given any promise as claimed by the complainant.  If there is any manufacturing defect for the tyres, the complainant has to approach the manufacturer and they are only dealers.  Further, the complainant has not brought it for servicing and wheel balancing and wheel rotation as part of maintenance has not been carried out.  Complainant purchased the tyres on 14/11/2019 and it has to be serviced and replaced once the vehicle has completed 10,000 kilometres, but he did not do this.  On registration of complaint regarding tyres, company inspected and could not find any manufacturing defect in it.    

8.   Other than the mere allegations in the complaint regarding the defects in the tyres, no evidence was adduced by the complainant to prove this.  He had produced some photographs of the tyres along with the complaint.  From this it is not possible to identify any defects.  The complainant did not take any steps to appoint an expert to find out the problem.  He did not file proof affidavit or mark any documents in support of his contention.  So the complainant has failed to prove that the defect in the tyre is due to its substandard quality and not due to normal wear and tear.  Point No: 2 is decided accordingly. 

9.  Points 3 to 5

      Since the complainant has failed to prove the defects in the tyres and no evidence is brought regarding its quality, no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice can be attributed on the part of the opposite party.

          So the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  

Pronounced in open court on this the 08^th day of March, 2023.

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                                               President  

                                                       Sd/-

              Vidya.A

                             Member

                                                                                            Sd/-                                                                                               

                                                                                  Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil 

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil

Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil

Cost- Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.