Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 635.

                                                                    Instituted on     : 07.11.2017.

                                                                    Decided on       : 21.05.2019.

Virender Hooda son of Sh. Ram Bhaj Hooda, age 43 year, R/o 358B/29, Tilak Nagar, Rohtak.

                                                                             ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1        Toyota Satyam Auto Serve Private Limited, Showroom & Workshop situated Near Banger Cinema Flyover, Hisar Road, Rohtak-124001. (Through its Manager).

2        Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. A43, Phase II MIDC Chakan, Village Saward, ari, Taluka Khed, Distt. Pune, Maharashtra-410501, India.

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Lalit Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Madhur Arora & Sh. Bachan Ram Arora Advocates

                   for opposite party No. 1.

                   Sh. Vivek Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a car Innova Crysta 2.4 G, 7 seater, VIN No. MBJJB8EM7015150690217, colour silver metallic, bearing registration No. HR-05AH-0015 for a sum of Rs.1510886/- vide invoice No. V12170000075 dated 15.03.2017 from respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is manufacturer of the tyres installed in the vehicle in question. That the complainant is the manufacturer of automotive parts in the name of Nirmal AutoTech and on 28.07.2017, complainant with his team were travelling by the said vehicle and when they reached 5 kilometer away from Rohtak City, the rear tyre of right side was burst. That it is also necessary to mention here that at that time the above said vehicle was run only 9358 kilometers. The complainant made a complaint at the service center at Rohtak regarding the same on 29.07.2017. The complainant again visited at the office of respondent No. 1, but surprisingly, he was given a report having docket No. 666647 dated 31.07.2017. The respondent No. 1 did not change the burst tyre. It is further alleged that on 11.10.2017, the complainant again visited at service center of respondent No. 1 and showed them another tyre which was also having same defect and on 11.10.2017, the tyre in question also burst due to the same reason. The complainant made a complaint at Toll Free Number of respondent No. 1 and the tyre was changed by the respondent No. 1 with the defected stepney tyre.  That on 13.10.2017, the third front tyre burst in the running vehicle in the night. The mileage of the said vehicle in the meter was 15803 kilometers at that time. That on 14.10.2017, the complainant went to Gurgaon at the service center of respondent No. 1, this time they changed only one tyre and refused to change the remaining burst tyres though within guarantee. That the complainant was also charged this time Rs. 6257/- against the sale consideration of new tyre. It is further alleged that the personnel of respondent No. 1 admitted that there is a genuine problem with the tyres of the vehicle in question. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed that an amount of Rs.6257/- paid by the complainant be refunded to him with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization and the remaining one burst tyre and remaining two tyres not burst yet having manufacturing defect may also be replaced and opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of cause of action till actual realization and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- as mental pain and agony to the complainant as explained in relief clause.

2                           After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that the respondent No. 1 is only authorized dealer of the manufacturer. It is further submitted that there is no service centre of respondent No. 1 at Gurgaon. That it is wrong that the respondent No. 1 admitted that there is genuine problem with the tyre of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 1 has no concern with the change of tyre because the respondent No. 1 is only a dealer of the vehicle. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.

3.                          Respondent No. 2 in its reply submitted that it is an admitted fact that the complainant is the manufacturer of automotive parts and having in the name and style of Nirmal Autotech and the vehicle of the complainant was being used extensively commercially for the purposes of increasing his company business. It is further submitted that Technical Engineer Mr. Devender from warranty department of respondent No. 1 reported that the said tyre was damaged due to side wall cut by road hazards, so, the claim of the complainant for replacement of said tyre was rejected and inspection report dated 31.07.2017 was generated by Mr. Devender and the copy of the same was given to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite party no. 2.

4                           Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and has closed his evidence on dated 13.11.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence on dated 25.02.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and has closed his evidence on dated 12.12.2018.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          The present complaint was filed by the complainant on the ground that the respondent have wrongly charged an amount of Rs.6257/- for tyre which was within warranty period. As per respondent the tyre has a side wall punch get due to the road hazards so the wall of the tyre has damaged and there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre and it cannot be considered under warranty. To prove this fact respondent has placed on record Ex.R2 the report issued by the respondent officials on dated 31.07.2017 and regarding the second tyre report was also placed on record as Ex.R3 on dated 12.10.2017. We have perused both the reports. As per Ex.R3, the respondent engineer or experts only perused the photographs and the damaged tyre. They have not physically examined the tyre of the complainant. They have issued report after seeing the photographs which cannot be believed without physical verification and is not authenticated. They have wrongly turned down the request of the complainant. Moreover as per the report Ex.R2 which was prepared on dated 31.07.2017 itself shows that the vehicle had run only 9358 km. when the complaint was made for the first time. Second time the vehicle had run 15391 kms. and again the complaint was made in the another tyre. Meaning thereby, the tyres of the vehicle in question was not upto the mark and there is some manufacturing defect in the tyres. Perusal of complaint itself shows that so many complaints were made by the complainant. Opposite parties have taken the other plea that the vehicle in question was used for commercial purpose. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid-down in Bridgestone India Vs. Liyakathali, RP No.547/2016(NC), Hassan Khalid Vs. General Motors 2018(IV) CPJ 115(NC), Baljeet Kaur Vs. Divine Motors 2017(3) CPJ 599(NC), Sanjay Singh Vs. Dabloo Bhagat 2018(II)CPJ533(NC), MRF Ltd. Vs. Bhalchandra II(2010)VPJ2509(NC), Bridgestone India Vs. Rohtash Fastners FA 938/2015(SC), Bagalkot Tiles V.s Dr. S.D.Indikar 2018(II)CPJ335(NC), Pharos Solutions Vs. Tata Motors 2014(IV)CPJ 525(NC)  and Shahid Ali Vs. Rohit Sanghi 2018(I)CPJ26A(MP).

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the aforesaid law placed on record by the opposite party no.2 are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances on the case as in the present case, as per the pleading itself, the complainant is using the vehicle for his personal business journeys and in that situation it cannot be established that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose. As such, the objection taken by the opposite parties is turned down.

8.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.6257/-(Rupees six thousand two hundred and fifty seven only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 07.11.2017 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision

9.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

21.05.2019.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member.