IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 194/2012 (Filed on 19.12.2012)
Between:
K.G. Venugopal,
Usha Kiron,
Kavumbhagom P.O.,
Thiruvalla – 689 102. … Complainant.
And:
1. Appollo Tyres,
Regd. Office, 6th Floor,
Cherupushpam Buildings,
Shanmugham Road,
Kochi – 682 011.
(By Adv. K.T. Thomas)
2. M/s. Trinity Wheels,
Kondodickal Building,
Shastri Road,
Kottayam – 686 001.
3. M/s. C.K. Tyres,
Ramanchira, M.C. Road,
Thiruvalla – 689 101. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased 4 tyres on 27.07.2011 for Rs. 18,000/- from the third opposite party for his Cheverlet Optra car bearing registration No. KL-27/7979. His car had run 31566 Kms. on the date of purchase of the tyres. After 6 months of use of the tyres, when the car run about 5000 Kms., one of the tyre bursted. But the third opposite party evaded from his responsibility by saying that the tyre might have hit on some hard object like stone. Thereafter during the month of March 2012, when the car had run about 7000 Kms., another tyre continuously showed decrease air pressure. At that time, the third opposite party replaced a new tyre and the defective tyre was sent to the first opposite party manufacturer for replacement. But after some days, the third opposite party intimated that the 1st opposite party is not willing to take responsibility for the said tyre as there is no manufacturing defect and the 3rd opposite party also given the inspection report. On the basis of the first opposite party’s inspection report, third opposite party is demanding the price of the replaced tyre. Normally such types of tyres have life for 40000 Kms. But the complainant’s tyres become defective before running 7000 Kms. There is no visible complaint on the tyres. As per the reply of the manufacturer, the defect of the tyre was noted as penetration of sharp object at side wall. The said observation was willful. The rejection of the complainant’s demand by the opposite parties caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of Rs. 4,500/-, the cost of the bursted tyre along with compensation and cost of Rs. 15,000/- from the opposite parties and for an order directing the third opposite party from not demanding the price of the replaced tyre.
3. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed their version with the following contentions: According to the first opposite party, third opposite party is not an authorized dealer of the first opposite party and the first opposite party is not liable to the acts of the third opposite party and the warranty of the first opposite party is applicable only to the authorized dealers. The first opposite party admitted that they have received 2 acelere tyres from the second opposite party with customer name ‘Jogy Sam’ and the said tyres were examined and found absolutely no manufacturing defect. The defects in the said tyres were caused due to side wall cut because of penetration of external sharp object at the side wall of the tyres. The first opposite party is not liable to the damages arising out of the rough and grossly negligent use of the tyres. Since they have not received any tyre from the complainant, the complainant is not a consumer of the first opposite party and as such there is no cause of action also. With the above contentions, first opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint against them as they have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant and there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant.
4. The second and third opposite parties are exparte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 and MO1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that, out of the 4 tyres purchased by the complainant from the third opposite party which is manufactured by the first opposite party become defective when it run less than 7000 Kms. in spite of the company’s offer that their tyres has a life of 40000 Kms. The claim for replacing the defective tyres was denied by the opposite parties by saying that the defects of the tyres were not due to any manufacturing defect. The above said acts of the opposite parties put the complainant to financial loss and mental agony and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant produced 4 documents and adduced oral evidence as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is the cash bill No. 1907 dated 27.07.2011 for Rs. 18,000/- issued by the third opposite party showing the sale of 4 tyres to the complainant. Ext. A2 is the bill No. 785 dated 27.07.2011 issued by the third opposite party in the name of the complainant showing the fitting of tyres and correcting wheel alignment and wheel balancing etc. free of cost done to vehicle No. KL-27/7979. Ext. A2(a) is that particular portion in Ext. A2 showing the running kilometers of the vehicle as 31566 at the time of changing the tyre. Ext. A3 is the rejection letter dated 24.04.2012 issued by the first opposite party to the second opposite party showing the test report of the tyres collected from Jogy Sam by the second opposite party. Ext. A4 is the copy of an invoice issued in the name of the third opposite party by the second opposite party showing the supply of tyres by the second opposite party to the third opposite party.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the first opposite party is that C.K. Tyres (3rd opposite party) from where the complainant purchased the tyres is not an authorized dealer of the first opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to get the warranty of the first opposite party as they are giving warranty only to the authorized dealers. The tyre examined by the first opposite party is received from a customer by name Jogy Sam and hence the complainant’s allegation that his tyre is examined by the first opposite party is false. The defect noted in the tyres of Jogy Sam is not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty issued by the first opposite party. Though the complainant claims that 2 tyres purchased by him become defective due to manufacturing defect, he had produced only one tyre before this Forum. The tyre produced by the complainant which is marked as Ext. M.O.1 has no visible defects and it is seen in very good condition. If the said tyre has any defect as alleged, the complainant ought to have produced expert evidence. In the absence of such evidence, mere production of the tyre is not sufficient to substantiate his claim. Thus the first opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service against the complainant as alleged by the complainant. With the above contentions, the first opposite party argued for the dismissal of the complaint against them.
10. In order to prove the contentions of the first opposite party, an authorized officer of the first opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as PW1.
11. On the basis of the contentions of the parties; we have perused the available materials on record and found that the complainant had purchased 4 tyres from the third opposite party on 27.07.2011 manufactured by the first opposite party. The complainant’s allegation is that out of the 4 tyres, 2 tyres become defective due to manufacturing defect. The defective tyres were given to the third opposite party for replacement on different occasions. First tyre was not replaced by the 3rd opposite party by saying baseless reason. One of the tyre was sent for examination to the first opposite party by the third opposite party after replacing it with a new tyre. Later the third opposite party informed the complainant that the said tyre was returned with the first opposite party’s inspection report stating that there is no manufacturing defect. The tyre and the inspection report were handed over to the complainant by the 3rd opposite party. But on a perusal of Ext. A3 inspection report, it is not the inspection report of the complainant’s tyre. It is the inspection report of the tyres of one Jogy Sam. Though the second tyre was replaced by the third opposite party, now he is demanding the price of the replaced tyre on the basis of Ext. A3 inspection report. Though the first opposite party admitted that M.O.1 tyre is manufactured by them, they denied their liability under warranty conditions by saying that the third opposite party is not their authorized dealer.
12. However, the facts and circumstances shows that the tyres purchased by the complainant was manufactured by the first opposite party and the said tyres became defective before 7000 Kms. If the tyre became defective before using it for a reasonable time by a purchaser, it might be due to manufacturing defect unless it is proved with cogent evidence by the seller who is exparte in this case. Therefore, we find no reason to dis-believe the allegations of the complainant. The entire facts and circumstances shows that the third opposite party had done some foul play in this transaction by selling the first opposite party’s tyres by claiming himself as the authorized dealer and by giving the inspection report of the tyre of some other person instead of giving the inspection report of complainant’s tyre. So it is clear that the entire illegal acts are done by the third opposite party which leads the complainant to the entire problems and sufferings, also in view of the stand taken by the first opposite party that the third opposite party is not an authorized dealer of the first opposite party and the warranty benefits are not given to unauthorized dealers. 3rd opposite party misguided the complainant by claiming that he is the authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party and further he had given an inspection report of someone else. There is no justification for the said acts. So we find that the third opposite party alone is liable to the complainant as the deficiency in service and the unfair trade practice is committed by the third opposite party. Therefore, this complaint is allowable against the third opposite party as the entire transactions are between the complainant and the third opposite party.
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the third opposite party is directed to pay the cost of the first tyre which had been given by the complainant to the third opposite party along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant and further directed the third opposite party not to demand the price of the replaced tyre from the complainant. The third opposite party is directed to comply this order within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount ordered herein above with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 12th day of June, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : K.G. Venugopal.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Cash bill No. 1907 dated 27.07.2011 for Rs. 18,000/-
issued by the third opposite party to the complainant.
A2 : Bill No. 785 dated 27.07.2011 issued by the third
opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A2(a): Particular portion in Ext. A2.
A3 : Rejection letter dated 24.04.2012 issued by the first
opposite party to the second opposite party.
A4 : Copy of an invoice issued in the name of the third
opposite party by the second opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Ajithkrishnan. G.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) K.G. Venugopal, Usha Kiron, Kavumbhagom P.O.,
Thiruvalla – 689 102.
(2) Appollo Tyres, Regd. Office, 6th Floor,
Cherupushpam Buildings, Shanmugham Road,
Kochi – 682 011.
(3) M/s. Trinity Wheels, Kondodickal Building,
Shastri Road, Kottayam – 686 001.
(4) M/s. C.K. Tyres, Ramanchira, M.C. Road,
Thiruvalla – 689 101.
(5) The Stock File.
