DOF.1 6 / 2 /06 DOO. 8 /7 / 10 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 8th day of July 2010 C.C.No.36/2006 Dr.V.V.Rajamohan, ‘Manideepam’, V.P.S.Nagar, P.O.Nirmalagiri 670 701. Complainant (Rep. by Adv.K.Gopalakrishnan) 1.HyunDai KTC Automobiles, Thane, Kannur. (Rep. by Adv.K.Vinodraj) 2. The Manger, Sales & Marketing Head office, Bridge Stone India Pvt.Lt.d, Sri.M.V.Road, Mumbai 59. Opposite Party (Rep. by Adv.George Cherian Karippaparambil) O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.50, 000/- to the complainant as compensation with cost. The complainant’s averments are as follows: He had purchased an AccentCRD1 car having No.KL.13/L.7900 from 1st opposite party on 2.9.04 for his personal use. The car was supplied with Bridge Stone Tyres manufactured by2nd opposite party. When the car has run only 7000 kms, the left front tyre got punctured and it was found that steel wires were exposed inside the tyre causing linear, tear and the tube as well as tyre were damaged. The tyre was taken to 2nd opposite party at Cochin and it was returned by saying that it has no manufacturing defect. Similar damage was also used to the left rear tyre on10.10.05 within a run of 16000 kms and the claim was rejected stating that the damage is due to external impact of the tyre. The damages caused to both tyres are similar and it is due to the internal exposing of steel wires which is a manufacturing defect. There was no visible external damage to tyres in both cases. The complainant has to buy 2 new tyres for the value of Rs.4200/- and prematurely keep idle the two tyres supplied by 1st opposite party. The complainant issued lawyer notices to opposite parties. Even though they have received it they neither replied it nor replaced the tyre. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving notice from the Forum both opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version. The 1st opposite party filed version admitting that the complainant had purchased an Accent CRD I Car and tyres were supplied by 2nd oppose party. 1st opposite party further admits that the 2nd opposite party returned the punctured tyre to the complainant by saying that the tyres have no manufacturing defects, while it was produced before 2nd opposite party for replace. According to opposite party they are only selling the car supplied by Hundai Motor India Ltd, and hence Hyundai motor India Ltd., Chennai is necessary party to the proceedings and hence the case is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties. The 1st opposite party is not making any alternation on the car and the vehicle sold is covered by warranty given by Hyundai Motor Ltd., except for batteries, tyres and tubes originally equipped as Hyundai vehicles for which warranty is given directly by the respective manufacturer. The 1st opposite party further submitted that thee was no manufacturing defects with the tyres and the same got punctured since the same got an impact with a hard external object and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The 2nd opposite party also field version admitting that the complainant purchased an Accent car with the tyre which were manufactured by2nd opposite party. According to 2nd opposite party both tyres were damaged due to impact damage i.e. tyre got impact with some external blunt object causing damage of inner liner, which is not a manufacturing defect and the same was intimated to the complainant. 2nd opposite party denied the averment that the damage caused to the tyre is due to manufacturing defect. The Engineer, Technical service department of 2nd opposite party had examined the tyres and was clearly found that the damages were caused due to impact with some external blunt object causing damage to inner liner and the rejection of complainant’s claim was as valid ground. The 2nd opposite party is manufacturing tyres subjected to regrious quality control test as per the standard prescribed by Beuro of Indian Standards AIS.044 (Part 2)2004 and CIRT, Pune has certified the quality of the tyre and hence there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of 2nd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties? 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DWs 1 & 2 and CW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 , B1 to B5 and C1 and MOs 1 and 2. Issue Nos. 1 to 4 The case of the complainant is that two tyres of his Accent car having No.KL.13/L7900 was punctured when it has run only 7000 kms and 16000 kms respectively and the 2nd opposite party was not ready to replace it even though its inner line was punctured due to manufacturing defects. In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1 and the expert commission was examined as CW1 and produced documents such as Ext.A1, copy of claim application dt.25.2.05 with claim advice letter, A2 claim application form dt.14.7.05 with claim advice letter, A3 cash bill dt.11.7.05, A4 copy of notice, A5 reply notice, A6 copy of lawyer notice and A7 acknowledgement card and C1 the commission report. According to 2nd opposite party the two tires were punctured due to external impact and hence the complainant is not entitled to get replaced. Since such defect is not cove red under warranty. In order to prove his contention the 2nd opposite party examined as DWs 1 and 2 and Ext.B1 owner’s manual and service booklet, B2 copy of power of attorney, B3 letter dt.26.7.05, B4 Test report and B5(a) and (b) complaint dockets. The 1st opposite party contended that the complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary party, the Hyundai motor India Ltd., the manufacturer of the Accent car was not arrayed as a party. The 1st opposite party produced Ext. B1 the owner’s manual. But the case is filed for replacing of its tyre. But admittedly the manufacturer of the tyre is the 2nd opposite party. The Bridge stone. As per Ext.B1 (a) it was stated that “Batteries, tyres and tubes originally equipped on Hyundai vehicles are warranted directly by the respective manufacturers”. So the manufacturer of the tyre is 2nd opposite party and hence the contention raised by 1st opposite party is not sustainable. The 2nd opposite party admits that the tyres fitted with the complainant’s car are Bridge Stone Tyres. But they contended that the damage caused to the two tyres in two different occasions are not due to any manufacturing defect, but duet o external impact with external blunt object causing damage of inner liner and he examined the present technical service Engineer as DW1 and the Engineer, Technical service department at the time of incident examined as DW2 and produced Ext.B4 documents which are marked subject to proof. These documents are photo copies and are issued by Central Institute of Road Transport. But no steps were taken by the 2nd opposite party to prove the above test report by examining the person who had issued the same. So the opposite party has not proved that the tyres were caused damages due to external impact. More over, the expert commissioner examined the tyre and submitted report before the Forum as C1 and he was also examined as CW1. The 2nd opposite party had challenged the qualification of the expert since he is only a foreman in a tyre retarding company. He deposed before the Forum that “ ]cn-tim-[n-¡p-T-t]mÄ- F-\n-¡v16 hÀjs¯ ]cn-N-b-ap-m-bn-cp-¶p. -S-b-dns\ kT-_-Ôn¨ dn¸-bÀ Imc-y-¯nÂ-D-]-tbmKn-¡p-¶-km-t¦-XnI ]Z-§Ä-F-´m-sW¶p F\n-¡-dn-bmT“. From these it is seen that he has an experience of 16 years in the tyre retrading field when he was examining the damaged tyre. It is true that he lacks sufficient qualification. But we cannot ignored the fact that a person will become more expertise, when he is dealing with the same thing again and again for 16 years than a person who has qualification and lack experience especially in the field of automobile and allied fields. We cannot ignore the fact that in all most all workshops of automobile and allied fields the person doing expert works are not having sufficient academic qualification but having sufficient experience. So we cannot ignore the view taken by the CW1 in this case by saying that he lacks sufficient qualifications. More over opposite party failed to prove that the damage was caused due to external impact. Above all the damaged tyre was produced before the Forum and marked as Ext.Mo1 and 2 having No.CC.A.2164/May04, an 1804/May 04. On perusal of the tyer it is seen that there is no damage externally to the tyres and the damage is seen on the inner layer of the tyre. The CW1 deposed that “ Tyre sâ {]X-e-¯n s]m«-en-Ãm-¯-Xp-sImmWv manufacturing defect BsW-¶p-]-d-ª-Xv.-]p-d-¯v I-Ãn-Sn-¨m ]pd¯v s]m«-ep-m-Ip-am-bn-cp-¶p. ]t£ Sb-dnsâ Df-fn am{X-amWv s]m«Â-D-f-f-Xp. thsd-bpT CtX-t]m-se S--b-dp-IÄ ]cn-tim-[n-¨n-«p-v.- A-¯-cT Sb-dp-IÄ¡v ]p-d¯v s]m«-ep-m-bn-cp¶p “. So from the above deposition it is seen that the defect was due to manufacturing defect and not due to any impact of external body. The opposite parties failed to establish that the damage was caused due to external impact. So we are of the opinion that these damage to both the tyres were caused because of the manufacturing defect and for which 2ndc opposite party is liable for replacing the two tyres and 1st opposite party is exonerated from liabilities. Since the complainant had purchased two tyres on 11.7.05 the 2nd opposite party is liable to give the value of the two tyres Rs.4200/- along with compensation of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings and the complainant is entitled to receive the same and hence order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 2nd opposite party to give Rs.4200/- (Rupees Four thousand two hundred only) as the value of the two tyres along with Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant has the liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act. 2nd opposite party is entitled to get the damaged tyres on the event of such payment Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1 & 2..Copy of claim application forms dt.23.2.05 & 14.7.05 A3.Cashbill dt.11.7.05 issued from Thankam Traders. A4& 5.Copy of the letter sent to OP and reply A6.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A7.Postal AD Exhibits for the opposite parties B1.Owner’s manual &service booklet B2.Copy of the power of attorney B3.Copy of the letter dt.26.7.05 sent to complainant B4.Copy of test report dt.27.8.04 B5.Copy of claim application form C1.Commission report Exhibits for material objects MO1.Tyre Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties DW1.Vishnu M.V Witness examined for the court CW1.Pradeepan /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
