DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Tuesday the 18th day of April 2023
C.C.381/2015
Complainant
Mr. P. Sahadevan,
S/o. Chandukutty,
Vadakke Ottakandathil House
Malaparambu P.O,
Kozhikode.
(By. Adv. Sri. Pavithran K)
Opposite Parties
1. Badar Tyres,
Parambangodichalil Buildings,
Bhut Road, Near Railway Gate, Kozhikode - 673 512.
- M/s.CEAT Limited,
C/o. West India Trading Company,
Door No.1/9011, Dawood Chambers
Bhut Road, Near Railway Gate,
Kozhikode – 673 005.
( By.Adv.Sri. V.Razal Rahiman and Adv.Sri. George P.P)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
Believing the representation of the first opposite party regarding the high quality and long life, the complainant purchased a CEAT 1000-20/16 MILE XL RIB Tyre from the first opposite party on 01-06-2015 paying Rs.14,375/- including tube and flap. But on 24-06-2015 while the vehicle was running, the tyre was broken and damaged. On contacting the opposite parties, they did not respond positively. The tyre was damaged within 23 days of purchase. What the opposite parties sold was a defective product and there was deficient service on their part. The complainant was put to great mental agony and inconvenience, besides monetary loss. Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- including the price of tyre and the consequential loss incurred by him.
3. The first opposite party was set ex-parte. The second opposite party filed written version denying all the allegations and claims made against them. According to the second opposite party, they are well-recognised company engaged in the business, interalia, of manufacturing and marketing of tyres, tubes, flaps etc. They sell their products to the dealers on a principal to principal basis. They do not give any warranty or guarantee in respect of their product manufactured or sold. It is true that they received one tyre 1000-20/16 MILE XL RIB under the claim from the first opposite party and it was inspected by their Technical Service Engineer and found that tyre had suffered damage while in service and had failed due to ‘THROUGH CUT ON SIDE WALL’, which is a technical terminology used in the tyre trade to describe a failure arising on account of over inflated tyre hitting with force a sharp external object causing cuts, holes and damage to the tyres on such use. The failure is apparently on account of the careless use and misuse of the tyre by the complainant and not on account of or as a result of manufacturing defect and this was communicated to the first opposite party. There are several factors like mechanical conditions and / irregularities of the vehicle, proper maintenance of the tyres, road conditions, driving habits, speed, nature of the terrain, position of the tyre on the vehicle, inflation / pressure, the external object with which the tyre may come in to contact while in motion etc which eventually influence the performance of the tyre. In this case, the tyre had failed on account of ‘THROUGH CUT ON SIDE WALL’. There is no manufacturing defect in the tyre. The prayer for compensation is not allowable. With the above contentions, the second opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1) Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the tyre?
(2) Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(3) Reliefs and costs.
5. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 and A2 on the side of the complainant. No evidence was let in by the second opposite party. The report of the expert was marked as Ext.C1.
6. Heard. Brief argument note was filed by the complainant.
7. Points 1 and 2: The complainant has approached this Commission alleging that the tyre sold to him was having manufacturing defect. The claim is for compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite parties.
8. The first opposite party is the dealer and the second opposite party is the manufacturer of the tyre. On 01-06-2015 the complainant purchased a CEAT 1000-20/16 MILE XL RIB tyre including tube and flap paying Rs.14,375/-. On 24-06-2015 the tyre was broken and damaged while in motion. The complainant alleges that the tyre became damaged after a few days of its purchase only on account of manufacturing defect.
9. The dealer, who is the first opposite party, did not contest the proceedings. The manufacturer, who is the second opposite party, has denied any kind of manufacturing defect to their product and they have taken a stand that the tyre failed due to ‘THROUGH CUT ON SIDE WALL’.
10. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the invoice dated 01-06-2015 for having purchased the tyre and accessories and Ext A2 is the letter dated 27-06-2015 issued by the second opposite party.
11. Ext. C1 report was prepared by the works manager KSRTC Regional work shop, Kozhikode after inspecting the tyre in question on 16-06-2017. It is specifically reported in Ext.C1 that the damage to the tyre happened purely due to manufacturing defects. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve or discard Ext.C1. The second opposite party filed objections to Ext.C1. But they could not substantiate the objections. The second opposite party did not adduce any evidence. The case tried to be set up by them is that the tyre failed due to ‘THROUGH CUT ON SIDE WALL’. ie, a failure arising on account of over inflated tyre hitting with force a sharp external object causing cuts, holes and damage to the tyre. But their case is not substantiated by any evidence. It is their case that the tyre was inspected by their Technical Service Engineer, pursuant to which, they had issued Ext.A2 letter to the dealer. But they have not taken any effort even to examine the technical expert who is alleged to have inspected the tyre and reported that the failure was due to ‘THROUGH CUT ON SIDE WALL’. In the absence of any evidence, the contention of the manufacturer that the tyre failed due to ‘THROUGH CUT ON SIDE WALL’ and not due to manufacturing defect cannot be accepted.
12. It may be noted that the tyre purchased by the complainant spending Rs.14,375/- failed just after 3 weeks. There is nothing to indicate any careless use of the tyre by the complainant. The case of the complainant that the tyre failed due to manufacturing defect stands proved through the testimony of PW1 coupled with Ext.C1. There was neglect on the part of the opposite parties to redress the grievance of the complainant. The act of the opposite parties in selling a product having manufacturing defect and their inaction and neglect to redress the grievance of the complainant constitutes unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the tyre amounting to Rs.14,375/- from the opposite parties. He is also entitled to get Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
13. Point No.3: In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC.381/2015 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs. 14,375/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Five only) to the complainant, being the price of the tyre and its accessories.
c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
d) The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.14,375/- shall carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 18thday of April, 2023.
Date of Filing: 22-07-2015.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext A1 - Copy of the invoice dated 01-06-2015 for having purchased the tyre and accessories.
Ext A2 - Letter dated 27-06-2015 issued by the second opposite party.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil
Commission Exhibits:
Ext.C1 -Report was prepared by the works manager KSRTC Regional work shop, Kozhikode.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Mr. P. Sahadevan.
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
