UNITED AUTO CENTRE Vs. GURPEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the OP against order dated 25.5.2010 passedby District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 1532 of 2009.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 15.3.2009 the complainant purchased four Bridgestone Radial Tyres for his Swift Car of size 195/60 for a sum of Rs. 16,000 vide bill/ invoice No. 13505 dated 15.3.2009 from OP and the warranty card was also issued to the complainant. The said payment was made through credit card of ICICI Bank. It was submitted that when the new alloys wheels and the tyres were installed, the alignment and the wheel balancing was 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 complainant reported his grievance and bring it into the notice of OP about the said tyres. The OP called the Engineer of Bridgestone at his shop then the Engineer checked the tyres as the shape of the tyres were spoiled and he preferred proper alignment. On the suggestion of the said Engineer, on 3.6.2009 the alignment of the tyres was checked from Berkley Auto Care at 17,146 kms and the alignment of the tyres was found OK. The complainant went to the OP and the OP sent the complainant to company's office at Manimajra. The Engineer checked the tyres and verified the printout of alignment checked by Berkley Auto Care but the Engineer after verification refused to replace the tyres. Despite various visits to OP for replacement of damaged tyres, being under warranty period, the OP had flatly refused to replace them. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 3.7.2009 through UPC, which was duly served upon the OP for settling the claim/ The OP sent his reply of the said legal notice and denied the claim of the complainant. The above said act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

(3.) REPLY was filed by the OP on 18.2.2010 and after that, none was appeared on behalf of OP and hence, OP was proceeded against ex parte. In the reply, it was submitted that the complainant had not impleaded the necessary party i.e. the Company (Manufacturer of Tyre) and the manufacturer was alone liable to pay damages or exchange the damaged tyres. It was further submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres and the tyres were got damaged due to the faulty wheel balancing and realignment done by the complainant from Punjab Tyres, Sector 22, Chandigarh. It was further submitted that the Technical Engineer of the company after inspection of the tyres reported irregular wear and tear in front tyres due to faulty alignment of the vehicle and not due to any manufacturing defect in the tyres. It was submitted that the makers of the tyres i.e. the company as per their warranty policy is liable only if there had been a manufacturing defect in the tyres and not if the tyres had been put improper use of tyres due to faulty alignment and wheel balancing of the vehicle. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.