IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 5th day of October 2009 CC.229/2008 A.K.Mohammed Nassar, “Delsile”, Chovva, Complainant Kannur 6. (K.M.Pradeepnatha) 1. Managing Director, Amana Toyota VPK Motors (P) Ltd. Thottada.P.O. Kannur 7. (Rep. by Adv.P.Faizl) 2. The Manager, Customer Service Division Toyota KirloskarMotor Ltd., Plot Bidai, Ramanagar Taluk, Bangalore Rural Dist 562 101 Opposite parties (Rep.by Adv.Faisal.P) 3. Manging Director, Good Year India Ltd., Mathura Road, Bullabagarh, Faridabard, Hyrana. (Rep. by Adv.J.Krishnakumar) 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 the cost of New Tyres with Rs.10, 000/- as compensation and cost. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Toyota, Innova-G1-8 model vehicle on 28.11.06. At the time of purchase the opposite parties made believe the complainant that the vehicle and its tyres are of high quality and also backed their claims with massive advertisement campaign. But to the utter shock of the complainant on 3.2.07, after running 5370kms, the wheel tyres on the rear right side had a crack on the shoulder area and admitting the defects in the tyre the opposite parties replaced the same. But again on 16.5.07, after 12,800/- km usage again found an external crack on the shoulder area of the tyre and the spot inspection of the report of the 3rd opposite party found that this was not adjustable under warranty and hence the replacement of the tyre was denied. This indicates and prove the poor quality and manufacturing defects of the tyes. The complainant has used this vehicle only for personal use and for the use of his family members. Because of the non-replacement the complainant had to use other vehicles for several days and this resulted in huge expenditure. The complainant had purchased a new tyre spending Rs.3750/-. So the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Stating all these facts the complainant issued a registered lawyer notice to the opposite parties on 2.11.07, but instead of replacing it they had issued reply stating false contentions. Hence this complaint. On receiving notice from the Forum opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared and filed their version. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version with the following contentions: Oppose parties 1 and 2 admits that the complainant had purchased a Toyota Innova from 1st opposite party and it was free from any defect and all other fittings are of good qualities and are free from any defects. The tyres are warranted under a separate warranty provided by the tyre manufacturer. The warranty provided by the vehicle manufacturer does not cover tyre, battery etc. The tyres are manufactured by 3rd opposite party and it is the responsibility of the tyre manufacturer to rectify or replace the tyres if any manufacturing defect is seen in the tyre. So the opposite parties 1 and 2 has no liability and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On getting the second complaint from the complainant on 16.5.07, the 1st opposite party reported to the 3rd opposite party and they conducted a spot inspection of the tyre, the very same day. The spot inspection conducted by the tyre manufacturer revealed that the complaint of external part as shoulder area is due to some external hit and not due to any manufacturing defect. So the tyre manufactures reported that the tyre is not replaceable under warranty. So there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. 3rd opposite party also filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant is a businessman and he purchased the vehicle for his business purpose. The 3rd opposite party admits that the tyre fitted in the vehicle supplied by the 2nd opposite party is manufactured by the. But they never offered 50000 kms guarantee. But in case any manufacturing defect of the tyre, it will be replaced. The defect is not related to the manufacturing of the tyre. The engineering wing of 3rd opposite party inspected the tyre and found that the tyre is not having any manufacturing defect. Upon the tyre there was a clear mark of hit on the side wall of the tyre. As such it was a crack due to the impact on hitting some sharp edge or hard object at a very high speed. This can occur only due to very careless and rough handling of the vehicle. So this opposite party has no liability and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled any relief claimed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 to B4. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 The opposite parties admitted that they had replaced one of the tyres due to crack on shoulder area which is a manufacturing defects soon after within two months of the purchase of the vehicle. This was done as per the Ext.A4 report. But they contended that the crack was only on hair-line crack. But no such details are in the Ext.A4 report. Similarly opposite parties again admitted on 16.5.07 that they had inspected the tyre and has filed a report ie.A5 report. In the report also it is written as” external cut on shoulder area”. But the opposite party contended that this defect was occurred due to hit of a sharp 0bject upon the tyre. But on perusal of Ext.A5 nothing is stated in the report with respect to the reason for such defect. More over, the opposite party has not examined the expert who had inspected the tyre and filed report. So it can be seen from the report itself that the both defects are one and the same. This defect was noticed within the guarantee period itself. So from the available evidence on record it is seen that the tyre became defective within the period of guarantee and once the tyre was replaced by opposite party due to manufacturing defect. So we are of the opinion that there is some deficiency on the part of 3rd opposite party who is the manufacturer of the tyre and hence he is liable to compensate the complainant either b y replacing the defective tyre or to refund the value of the tyre with Rs.1000/- as cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled to receive the same. Opposite parties 1 and 2 has no liability and hence they are exonerated from liabilities. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 3rd opposite party either to replace the defective tyre or to refund the value of the tyre with Rs.1000/- as cost and compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order against the 3rd opposite party under the provisions of consumer protection act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Copy of the invoice issued by OP A2.Copy of the delivery note issued by OP A3.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to Ops A4.Spot inspection report issued by Good year India Ltd. dt.3.2.07 and 16.5.07 Exhibits for the opposite parties B1 & B2.Copy of the reply notice sent to complainant B3. Copy of Spot inspection report issued by Good year India Ltd. dt 16.5.07 B4.Copy of the warranty card Witness examined for the complainant PW1. Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties DW1.Sreejith V.P /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
