BRIDGESTONE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the Indian arm of a multi-national company, namely, Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint, is to the order dated 20.04.2017, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1332 of 2016. By the said order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 07.09.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-IV at Jaipur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 1404/2012 (Old Complaint No. 657/2010), and has thus dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner herein. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

(2.) In the first instance, while accepting the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1 herein, alleging deficiency on the part of the Petitioner in supply of a defective tyre, manufactured by the Petitioner herein and fitted in the vehicle, namely, Scorpio, as an original equipment, because one of the tyres had a bulge, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to: either replace the tyre in question or in the alternative pay a sum of Rs. 5, 000/- as its cost, along with interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization; pay a compensation amounting to Rs. 10, 000/- towards mental harassment and litigation expenses, quantified at Rs. 5, 000/-.

(3.) The short ground on which the legality of the order is questioned is that both the Forums below have committed a material irregularity in deciding the Complaint on merits in favour of the Complainant, without deciding the Application filed by the Petitioner under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying for sending the tyre in question for inspection by an expert. Since the challenge to the order is only on a technical point, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, giving rise to the filing of the Complaint.