BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT LTD Vs. MUNNA LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a manufacturer of tyres. Vide order dated 5.5.2004, passed by the District Forum it has been directed to replace tyre purchased by respondent No.1 with a new tyre and with a fresh warranty on accepting the claim of the respondent that the tyre was having manufacturing defect. The stand taken by the appellant was that since there was nail penetration in the tyre which could have damaged side wall and since there was no other material on the record to arrive at the conclusion that the tyre did not have any manufacturing defect the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(2.) We have perused the impugned order and found from the record that the side wall of the tyre was bulging which means it was bigger than its size. Nail penetration only causes such a damage to the tyre which does not amount to manufacturing defect but if the tyre bulges from the side wall it definitely suffers from manufacturing defect. If there was nail penetration it should have left mark on the wall of the tyre. Merely because the appellant mentioned that there was a nail or sharp penetration on the tyre it did not mean that the bulging on the side wall of the tyre was on account of nail or sharp penetration.

(3.) The dealers or the providers of the service should always be honest in their dealings and if they start behaving like this that they are even reluctant to replace the tyre, it would be against the interest of the consumer. Consumer is concerned with the quality of the goods he purchases and is not concerned with as to the technical aspect as he is always a layman and is only concerned with proper working of article purchased by him. Unless and until the said defect is removable by providing any mechanical or technical aid such a defect would amount to a manufacturing defect. Once the nature of the defect in question is not removable by any device, it is a manufacturing defect. Nail or sharp penetration is easily rectifiable. Defence taken by the appellant is difficult to accept. There are no convincing reasons to interfere with the impugned order. In the result we find the appeal devoid of merit and dismiss the same in limine.