Complaint filed on: 02.03.2016

                                                                                                                             Complaint Disposed on:06.05.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.

COMPLAINT NO.16/2016

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF MAY 2017

:PRESENT:

HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER

HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

J.K.Vishwanath S/o Krishna,

General Merchant, Maria STD Road,

Gowrikaluve, Chikmagalur.

(By Sri/Smt. I.S. Thejasvi, Advocate)

V/s

OPPONENT:

1. The Proprietor,

Malnad Tyre,

Dealers in Tyre, Tubes &

Accessories, Near Signal,

I.G Road, Chikmagalur.

2.Bridgstone India Pvt. Ltd.,

Door No.12, CVR Building,

Ground & First Floor,

Behind Saptagiri Petrol Bunk,

Next to Lalbagh Double Road Gate,

Wilson Garden, Hosur Road,

Bangalore-27.

3. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd.,

CLF Agent, SALMED system Pvt. Ltd.,

Door No.1-9/2,(1) (2),

R.N.State, Backside of A.J.Hospital,

Bale bail bajaj, Mangalore-575004.

4. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.A-43, Phase-II,

MIDC Chakan Village,

Sawardari, Taluka Khed,

Pune Dist, Maharastra.

(OP No.1 to 4 By Sri/Smt.C.Janardhanachar, Advocate)

By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,

:O R D E R:

The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 to 4 alleging unfair trade practice in selling a defective tyre to the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Op Nos.1 to 4 to replace the said defective tyre with a new one or in alternative to refund an amount paid towards purchase of the said tyre along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:

        The complainant had purchased a tyre manufactured by Op no.3 to 4 from Op no.1, who is the authorized dealer of Op no.2 to 4 on 22.08.2015 vide TL No.215*70R15 by paying Rs.5,900/-. For which Op no.1 had issued a tax invoice No.166063. After purchase of the said tyre complainant fixed the said tyre at the showroom of Op no.1 itself.

        The complainant vide driving the vehicle had noticed that the beeding of the tyre got damaged and it was broken, the said damage was caused only after purchase of the tyre, after plying the vehicle up to 30 Km within 3 days. Immediately complainant approached Op no.1 on 25.08.2015  and informed with respect to the damage in the tyre, for which Op no.1 has taken back the said tyre and issued an endorsement to that effect to register the complaint to Op no.2 to 4 vide no.215/70R15-RB23-JL-CAF0915 and assured that the said tyre will be replaced immediately after receipt of the said tyre. Op no.1 in turn has sent the tyre to Op no.2, again sent the same to Op no.4 and Op no.4 after receipt of the tyre had issued a letter dated 08.09.2015 stated that the beeding broken due to external impact and stated that there is no manufacturing defect and they have refused to replace the said tyre with a new one. The said information also informed by Op no.1. Even though he convinced that the damage due to manufacturing defect, Op no.1 expressed inability to replace the same as the manufacturer and supplier (Op no.2 to 4) have refused to accept the defect.

        Op no.1 to 4 knew that the said tyre has a manufacturing defect which was noticed within 3 days from the purchase of the tyre that to after running only 30 Km. The Op no.1 to 4 intentionally avoiding to replace the tyre by suppressing the manufacturing defect. Hence, Op no.1 to 4 rendered unfair trade practice in selling defective tyre to the complainant. Due to non-replacement of the tyre complainant suffered loss in his business and forced to run from pillar to pillar in order to lodge a complaint with respect to the defect of the tyre.

        Hence, complainant filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice and prays for replacement of the said tyre with a new one or in alternative refund an amount of Rs.5,900/- which was paid towards the tyre along with compensation for unfair trade practice as prayed above.

3. After service of notice Op no.1 to 4 appeared through their counsel and filed version.

4. Op no.1 to 4 in their version have contended that on 22.08.2015 complainant has purchased a tyre manufactured by Op no.4 from Op no.1 by paying Rs.5,900/- as per cash bill and invoice no.166063. In fact the vehicle of the complainant is a goods vehicle and complainant has got heavy load on the vehicle and due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle the tyre got succumbed to sharp edge and because of that tyre got damaged. After receipt of the tyre from complainant by Op no.1, Op no.2 to 4 inspected the tyre and issued a report in form no.542195 dated 08.09.2015 and stated that the said tyre has no manufacturing defect, the said beeding was broken due to external impact. Hence, they have rejected to replace the tyre to the complainant. There is no any unfair trade practice on the part of these Op no1 to 4. Even there is no any manufacturing defect in the tyre sold to the complainant. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation or replace the tyre as per prayer of the complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.6. Op also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1and R.2.

6.     Heard the arguments.

7.     In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?

8.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

1. Point No.1: Affirmative.  
2. Point No.2: As per Order below. 

: R E A S O N S :

POINT NOs. 1 & 2:

9. There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased one Bridgestone tyre TL no.215*70R15 on 22.08.2015 by paying Rs.5,900/-. The said tyre was manufactured by Op no.4, Op no.2 and 3 are the suppliers of the said tyre. The complainant alleges in his complaint and affidavit that while driving his vehicle the said tyre was damaged and beeding of the tyre got damaged, he travelled only up to 30 Km after fixing the tyre. Hence, the tyre has a manufacturing defect and requested the Op no.1 to replace the tyre. For which Op no.1 has sent the tyre for inspection, in turn Op no.2 to 4 have inspected the tyre and submitted the report stated that there is no any manufacturing defect in the tyre and the said damage was caused due to external impact. Hence, Op no.1 to 4 have rejected the claim of replacement of the tyre of the complainant. For which complainant approached this Forum and prays for either to replace the tyre or to refund the amount in the interest of justice and equity.

10. On contrary Op no.1 to 4 have take a common contention that the tyre was damaged due to external impact and not due to manufacturing defect. Hence, rejected to replace the tyre even Op no.1 to 4 have taken a contention that the complainant is using a goods vehicle and he has over loaded the vehicle and due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle the tyre was damaged due to external impact and also sworn affidavit in this regard and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

11. Complainant filed tax invoice for having purchase of the tyre marked as Ex.P.1, Report issued by Op no.4 marked as Ex.P.2, Endorsement given by Op no.1 for receipt of the tyre marked as Ex.P.3, Office copy of the legal notice marked as Ex.P.4. The Op no.1 to 4 also filed affidavit and marked Ex.R.1 and Report stated there is no any manufacturing defect marked as Ex.R.2. Op no.1 to 4 except the report have not produced any materials/documents to show that complainant has over loaded the vehicle during travel, due to which the tyre was damaged. We observed here the tyre beeding was broken. The learned advocate for complainant has vehemently argued that the beeding of the tyre cause inside the rim of the tyre of the tyre which is not exposed to the outer layer of the tyre. Such being the case there is no chances of hitting any external hard surface or damage caused to the beeding by external impact, it is only a manufacturing defect which resulted in beeding of the tyre damaged. Hence, there is a unfair trade practice on the part of Op no.1 to 4. Complainant also produced tyre before this Forum which is marked as M.O.1. On observation of the said tyre, the beeding of the tyre was broken, of course we agree that the beeding of the tyre inside to the rim of the tyre which is not exposed to the outer surface. We are of the opinion that there no chances of hitting any external hard objects to the beeding. Even through if any object or hard surface was hit to the said walls of the tyre there may be chances of damage to the said walls of the tyre only, here in this case the beeding was broken. Hence, we found there is a manufacturing defect in the tyre. The report produced by both complainant and Op merely says that there is only an external impact due to which the damage was caused, the said reason was not acceptable and no evidence was forwarded by Op no.1 to 4 in support of the said report. Hence, it is a clear case of unfair trade practice on the part of Op no.1 to 4 in selling the defective tyre to the complainant. Hence, Op no.1 to 4 are liable to replace the said defective tyre with a new one, if they failed to replace the tyre within below stipulated time Op no.1 to 4 are liable to refund an amount of Rs.5,900/- which was paid towards purchase of the tyre by the complainant. The Op no.1 to 4 are also liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- each for unfair trade practice in selling defective tyre to the complainant along with litigation expenses of Rs.500/- each to the complainant. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-  

: O R D E R :

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
2. OP Nos.1 to 4 are directed to replace the defective tyre with a new one. If they failed to replace the tyre refund an amount of Rs.5,900/- to the complainant.
3. Op no.1 to 4 further directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand Rupees only) each for unfair trade practice along with litigation expenses of Rs.500/- each (Five hundred Rupees only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization. 
4. Send free copies of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 6^th day of May 2017).

(B.U.GEETHA)        (H.MANJULA)         (RAVISHANKAR)

    Member                  Member                    President

ANNEXURES

Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:

Ex.P.1              - Cash paid receipt for purchase of the tyre.

Ex.P.2              - Claim application Form dtd:02.09.2015

Ex.P.3             - Letter issued by Op no.1 dtd:25.08.2015.

Ex.P.4              - Office copy of the legal notice.

Ex.P.6              - 2 postal Ack..

M.O.1               - Tyre

Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:

Ex.R.1              - Power of attorney.

Ex.R.2              - Inspection Report dtd:02.09.2015.

Dated:06.05.2017                         President 

                                        District Consumer Forum,

                                                  Chikmagalur.            

RMA