State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bridgestone India Private Limited vs Umesh Vir Vikram Singh And Another on 31 July, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 178 / 2010
Bridgestone India Private Limited
Sales and Marketing Head Office
Fourth Floor, 'A' Wing, Trade Star Building
Andheri East, Mumbai
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Sh. Umesh Vir Vikram Singh S/o Sh. B.B. Singh
R/o 743, I.D.P.L., Rishikesh
District Dehradun
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. M/s Grover Tyre Shoppe
Opposite Bhardwaj Hospital
Haridwar Road, Rishikesh
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
Sh. M.P. Upadhyay, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. C.K. Bhatnagar, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
None for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 31/07/2012
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 26.04.2010 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 140 of 2007, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite party No. 1 - appellant and directed the appellant to pay sum of Rs. 4,333/- to the complainant - respondent No. 1.2
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 22.10.2006, the complainant purchased four tyres of Bridgestone company for sum of Rs. 15,700/- from its authorised dealer - respondent No. 2. On 10.04.2007, when the complainant was going to Jaipur by his vehicle, the front tyre of the vehicle got burst, on account of which the vehicle got disbalanced. The complainant could not reach the destination in time, which caused him a loss of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant asked for replacement of the tyre. The appellant called the complainant on 11.05.2007 for replacement of the tyre. However, later on, the claim of the complainant was repudiated. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.
3. The appellant filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the tyre did not suffer from any manufacturing defect and the said incident took place on account of driving the vehicle by the complainant at an excessive speed and there has not been any deficiency in service on its part.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 26.04.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 - complainant and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2.
6. The tyre was inspected by Sh. Jitendra Kumar, Service Engineer of the appellant on 11.05.2007 and he has mentioned the 3 cause of failure in the claim application form / claim advice letter dated 11.05.2007 (Paper No. 29) as, "Run Flat - Tyre runs on zero / low inflation pressure. Ply cords damage cause of sidewall burst. No manufacturing fault." Since the tyre was inspected by the Service Engineer of the appellant, therefore, there was no necessity of sending the tyre to the appropriate laboratory for analysis, as is provided under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the view to that effect taken by the District Forum, does not call for any interference. Secondly also, there is no question of sending the burst tyre to the laboratory for test, as the same will not disclose the actual cause of bursting of the tyre.
7. The main ground taken by the appellant is that the complainant was driving the vehicle at a high and excessive speed of 100 kms. per hour, on account of which the tyre got burst and there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. At the time of the incident, the vehicle was being driven on the National Highway, i.e., Jaipur - Delhi Highway, therefore, it can not be said that the vehicle was being driven by the complainant at an excessive speed. It is also of significance that the complainant had purchased four tyres and out of the said four tyres, only one tyre got burst. If the complainant was driving the vehicle at a high speed and there was any mishandling on the part of the complainant in taking care of the vehicle, all the four tyres would have been damaged / burst, but the same did not happen. The Service Engineer of the appellant also did not care to check the remaining three tyres of the vehicle, so as to find out as to whether there was also zero / low inflation pressure in the said tyres or not. We also fail to understand as to how the Service Engineer of the appellant could test a burst tyre and conclude that the cause of bursting of the tyre was "Run Flat - Tyre runs on zero / low inflation pressure. Ply cords damage cause of sidewall burst. No 4 manufacturing fault." The appellant has itself stated in its written statement that there is no question of sending the burst tyre to the laboratory for test. If the prescribed laboratory can not test a burst tyre, then how the Service Engineer of the appellant could test it and could conclude that the tyre did not suffer from any manufacturing defect. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances of the case, no negligence in taking care of the vehicle or driving the vehicle at the time of the incident can be attributed to the complainant.
8. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the tyre got burst on account of improper use of the vehicle by the complainant and, therefore, the said loss was not covered under the warranty and the appellant was not liable to replace the tyre or to refund its cost to the complainant. As stated above, there is nothing on record to show that the vehicle was being used improperly by the complainant or that he was not taking proper care while driving the vehicle and was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed and could not control the vehicle, resulting into bursting of the tyre.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Parvati Devi and another Vs. Sunderlal Jain Charitable Hospital and others; III (2008) CPJ 287 (NC), wherein it has been held that expert report is to be given due weightage. The said preposition of law can not be argued with, but we also have to see the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel also cited another decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of M.N. Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. and others; II (2009) CPJ 105 (NC). In the said case, the report of independent surveyor / engineer was not produced to prove existence of manufacturing defect and the 5 complainant was not held entitled to any relief. In the present case, there is no question of submitting any expert report. The facts on record show that the there was no mishandling / carelessness on the part of the complainant and the tyre got burst on account of the manufacturing defect and nothing else. Learned counsel also cited the decision in the case of Narender Vs. International Tractors Ltd. and another; I (2004) CPJ 538 and H.M.T. Limited and another Vs. Smt. Jubeda Bee; I (2000) CPJ 54, wherein it has been held that in the absence of expert evidence / opinion, the manufacturing defect can not be concluded. As stated above, in the present case, there is no question of producing any expert opinion by the complainant and the facts and circumstances of the case speak themselves. The other decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and as mentioned below also do not help to the cause of the appellant and do not provide any assistance to the appellant.
(i) Tata Eng. & Locomotive Co. Ltd. and another VS. Sunil Bhasin and another; II (2008) CPJ 111 (NC).
(ii) M/s Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. and another Vs. M/s Panse Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and another; I (1993) CPJ 47 (NC).
(iii) Priti Basak Vs. Badal Chandra Halder and another; III (2008) CPJ 310.
(iv) S.P. Mandal (Dr.) Vs. A.K. Sharda and another; III (2008) CPJ 361.
(v) S.G. Malhotra Vs. Em Pee Motors and Scooters (P) Ltd.
and another; IV (2003) CPJ 186.
(vi) S.P. Barthwal Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited and another; I (2003) CPJ 298.
(vii) Dr. Bijaya Lal Biswal Vs. Purushottam Panda; I (2004) CPJ
110. 6
10. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the matter and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference. The appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
11. Appeal is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/-, to be paid by the appellant to the respondent No. 1.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K