Ford India Private Limited V/S Mrs.Prabha Sood - Consumer Court Case

Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/45

Mrs.Prabha Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ford India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

28 May 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 18.01.2018

Date of Decision : 28.05.2021

Mrs. Prabha Sood & Mr.Aditya Sood, 142 Green Park, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.

….. Complainants

Versus

1.Ford India Private Limited, having its registered address at S.P.Koil Post, Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu-603204, through its authorized dealers.

2.M/s Imperial Ford (Garyson Auto Private Limited), having its registered office at village Karimpur, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana-141101.

3.M/s Bhagat Ford, having its office at No.658, GT Road, Industrial Area, Ludhiana-141003.

…..Opposite parties

(Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

QUORUM:

SH.K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants : Complainant No.1 Ms.Prabha Sood in person.

For OP1 : Sh.Rakesh Gandhi, Advocate

For OP2 : Sh.P.S.Ghumman, Advocate

For OP3 : Complaint not admitted vide order dated 05.02.2018.

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that on 24.07.2017, the complainant purchased one Ford Ecosport Platinum Edition (Top-end variant) bearing Chassis/VIN No.MAJAXXMRKAHP42447 and Engine No.HP42447. The complainant paid a booking amount of Rs.5000/- and a down payment of Rs.1,89,000/- from her saving bank account maintained with Axis Bank and also obtained a loan of Rs.9,91,386/- from Axis Bank directly paid by Axis Bank to the OP2. The complainant further paid a sum of Rs.19,581/- in cash for insurance of the car to M/s New India Assurance Company. The car was allotted registration No.PB-10-GJ-5807 by the OP2 on the same day. The car was fitted with Diamond-cut 17 inch alloy wheels and Apollo tyres of 205/50r17 size.

2. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 27.07.2017, the complainant came to know about the defect in the car when it met with an accident. The complainant had gone to visit her relative near Amritsar and on the way back, the car hit a pot hole when it was being driven at a speed of 85-90 KMPH. As a result, suddenly the right hand front tyre got burst. The left hand front tyre also bulged having been hit upon a pot hole. At that time, the car had run just 678 KMs. After the accident, the complainant contacted OP2 who told that the OP1 was not responsible for the tyres and Apollo Engineers would inspect and give the replacement. After 3-4 days, the complainant took the car to Agarwal Tyres, an Apollo Dealer for inspection. After checking, the engineer gave a report that the tyres have been damaged due to external impact, which is not covered under the warranty policy. The Apollo team refused to replace the tyres. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP2 once again and they were informed that the matter would be taken up with the management and if the company approved, they would replace both tyres. In the meanwhile, the complainant kept driving the car with swollen tyre.

3. It is further alleged that after getting the replacement of two tyres, on 24.09.2017, another similar accident took place on Ferozepur Road, when the complainant was coming back from Moga. The car again hit upon a small pot hole when it was being driven at a speed of 90 KMPH and the right hand front tyre again got burst. At that time, the complainant herself was driving the car. The complainant replaced the burst tyre with a spare tyre. The next morning, when the tyre was checked, it had a same cut on the sidewall as had happened at the time of previous accident. It was not possible ordinarily that the same side tyre would burst twice under the similar conditions on two different roads with different drivers. At the time of second accident, the car had run just 3654 KMs only. Since two accidents of similar nature took place within a period of two months, it was suspected that it had something to do with the tyres. The complainant sent an email to the Ford Customer care on 25.09.2017 and its Directors M.Anuragh and D.Dixit giving the complete details of the two accidents. The complainant was again told to wait for inspection by Apollo Engineers and the team of OP2 refused to replace the tyres. Instead they only took the burst tyre for inspection. After a week, the complainant received a call from the OP2 saying that Apollo has again refused replacement but they are trying to get approval from their management for replacement of tyres at their own cost. The son of the complainant had inquired from the multiple vendors including New Bedi Tyre Plaza, M/s Bakshisons , M/s Monga Tyres Pvt. Ltd., who are the authorized dealers of branded tyres. On inquiry, it was found that these vendors have never sold 205/50r17 size tyres which were fitted in the car as this size was very low profile and highly unsuitable for 17 inch wheels. The son of the complainant was informed by the other dealers that this size was bound to burst as 17 inch wheels require a little higher profile tyre such as 215/55r17 or 225/50r17. Surprisingly, the Apollo dealer was not aware of this size being distributed by the company. Thereafter, the complainant was informed that the OP2 would replace only one damaged tyre and no other brand tyre can be used as it would nullify the warranty of the suspension. As a matter of fact, the Apollo brand is one of the cheapest low quality brands of tyres in the market and the wrong size of tyres were being supplied directly to OP2 by Apollo Tyres, which were not distributed in the market. Eventually the complainant accepted the replacement of a single tyre of the same brand on 13.10.2017.

4. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 04.11.2017, the complainant drove the car to Jalandhar and on the way back, her son noticed that the right hand front tyre had swollen due to impact of a pot hole. At that time, the car was being driven at a speed of 85-90 KMPH. The son of the complainant shared a photo of the tyre with the Service Manager over Whatsapp and also sent an email to the customer care. OP2 was requested to replace all the five tyres with a reputed brand or in the alternative the cost of the car be refunded to the complainant. After following up the matter for three months, the OP2 replaced all the five tyres with tyres of the same Apollo Tyres. At that time, the car had run only had recorded 5366 KMs. Thereafter, the complainant thought that the problem would not recur in future. However, on 28.11.2017, when the complainant and her younger son Devan Sood were coming back from Moga, the car again hit upon a small pot hole. The complainant was shocked to see that the right hand front tyre got burst and the alloy wheel also split into two pieces. It was a miraculous escape for the complainant and her son otherwise they could have lost their lives in the accident. After the accident, the broken alloy wheel could not be taken out. As a result, the roadside assistance of Ford India was called. The driver of the towing van offered to replace the broken wheel but the complainant refused as she wanted OP2 to see the extent of the damages first hand. In the meantime, while waiting for the towing van, the complainant’s son recorded a video showing the depth and size of the pot hole and the extent of damage caused to the tyre and alloy wheel. It was fourth similar accident within a period of just 4 months and the car had run just 6124 KMs. Feeling frustrated, the complainant decided to return the car which was towed by the roadside assistance on 28.11.2017 and shockingly it was delivered to Bhagat Ford (OP3). In fact, there was a serious problem in the suspension of the car which had resulted in the accident, but the OPs remained defiant and refused to acknowledge that there was a manufacturing defect in the car or in the tyres. However, the OPs offered to replace all the five tyres with tyres of Bridgestone brand, though the complainant had requested in the email dated 29.11.2017 for refund the cost of the car with punitive damages. Since the date of last accident, the car has been in possession of the OP3 and the complainant has been paying the EMIs regularly to the bank and since 29.11.2017, the complainant had been requesting the Ops to refund the cost of the car. The complainant has further come to know that Ford Company had sold three cars of the same variant in the year 2017 and the said cars were also having the similar problems which clearly indicates that there has been a serious fault in the car which the OPs are not willing to accept. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the total amount of Rs.12,05,237/- to the complainant along with interest @8.42% per annum and the OPs be further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lac as punitive damages for selling a faulty car to the complainant.

5. The complaint was not admitted as against as the OP3 at the time of preliminary hearing. However, it has been resisted by the OP1 and OP2. In the written statement filed by the OP1 Ford India Private Limited, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as the only grievance of the complainant is that the car was fitted with cheap inferior quality tyres which are unable to bear the impact of potholes at a high speed. However, this objection is not sustainable as it is a matter of common knowledge that driving carelessly over a pothole can cause an immediate tyre blowout due to impact alone. Moreover, the complainant cannot be allowed to assume the role of an automobile engineer for alleging that the 17 inch wheel of the car should not have been fitted with ‘205/50 r 17’ size tyre. According to the OP1, it is the industry known phenomenon that for a 17 inch wheel the best tyre size is 205/50R17. Besides, the car was admittedly being driven at a high speed in contravention of the permitted speed limits. As per section 112(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Governor of Punjab vide notification dated 27.09.2007 has fixed the maximum speed limit on the National Highways and State Highways as 80 KMPH respectively and the same as 50 KMPH for municipal areas. It has further been alleged that the complainant has failed to establish that a particular kind of defect falling within the purview of inherent/manufacturing defect has persisted in the vehicle. The warranty obligation of the manufacturer is only to the extent of repair or replacement of the part which is proved to be suffering from any manufacturing defect within the limits of the warranty through expert evidence. Moreover, the complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect in the car and has merely complained alleged defect in the tyres manufactured by Apollo Tyres Limited. It has further been pleaded that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP1 and the OP1 comes into the picture only when there is a manufacturing defect in the car. It has further been pleaded that the complainant appears to have misunderstood the warranty which only covers the repairs or replacement of any such defect which might occur due to faulty manufacture or material within the warranty period. The warranty does not cover the normal maintenance services and the replacement of routine service items which are subject to normal wear and tear. Moreover, the complaint involves several disputed questions of fact and law which requires detailed oral and documentary evidence and the same cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings and for the dispute raised by the complainant, only Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. Moreover, the car was admittedly being driven in willful defiance of the terms and conditions as prescribed under the Owner’s Manual. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

6. In a separate written statement filed on behalf of the OP2, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable nor there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the OP2. The vehicle is admittedly lying with M/s Bhagat Ford(OP3) and not with the OP2. Therefore, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP2. It was duly mentioned in the document of warranty, which was also signed by the complainant, that battery, audio system, tyres in original and tubes equipped on ford vehicles are warranted directly by the respective manufacturers and not by the Ford company. It has been so mentioned in the warranty on page no.5 at serial no.21 but despite that the complainant has not impleaded Apollo Tyres as a party in the present complaint. Moreover, the Apollo Tyres gave a product inspection report whereby it was found that the tyre was busted due to outside impact and the same was not a manufacturing fault in the tyre. Despite that the tyres were replaced as a goodwill gesture on the instruction of the Ford India Limited(OP1). The duty of the OP2 is only to sell the vehicle manufactured by the OP1 and to do the service of the vehicle as per rules. If there was any problem found in the tyres of the vehicles, it was to be addressed by the OP1 and not the OP2. Moreover, the tyres, which have been damaged due to the external impact, are not covered under the warranty. The driving habits of the owner of the vehicle are responsible for the bulging and bursting of the tyres. On merits, it has been denied that the speed of the vehicle was around at 85-90 KMPS at the time when the car hit a pot hole. According to the OP2, the vehicle was being driven rashly at a very high speed. Moreover, the tyre was not under the warranty, but still best services were provided by the OP2. It has further been denied if there is any serious fault in the car which the OPs are not willing to accept. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

7. In order to prove the allegations made in the complaint, complainants tendered their joint affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.

8. On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA1 of Sh.Mirza Qaiser Iqbal Beg, Authorized Signatory of OP1 along with documents Ex.DW-R1/1 to Ex.DW-R1/8.

9. Similarly, OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Ravinder Singh, Service Manager of Garyson Auto Pvt. Ltd along with documents Ex.RW2/A to Ex.RW2/D.

10. We have gone through the record and have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties.

11. During the course of arguments, the complainant has contended that there is a serious manufacturing defect in the car as similar types of accidents have taken place on as many as four occasions. According to the complainant, every time the car happened to hit upon a pot hole even while being driven at a reasonable speed, the tyre used to burst. The complainant has further pointed out that the last accident took place on 28.11.2017 when not only the right hand front tyre burst but the alloy wheel under the tyre split into two pieces and it was only a miracle that the complainant and her son were safe otherwise anything could have happened. The complainant has further contended that since the similar types of accidents have taken place continuously and the problems/defects in the car were not removed by the OPs, they are bound to take back the car and refund the cost of the car to the complainant along with interest and compensation, as prayed for in the complaint.

12. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs has argued that it was clearly provided in the warranty itself that the tyres, which were procured by the manufacturer from the Apollo Tyre, would not be covered under the warranty. The complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the tyres as a party in this case and due to this, this complaint is not maintainable. Counsel for the OPs has further contended that even otherwise it is an admitted case of the complainants that tyre got burst only when it hit upon a pot hole. According to the counsel for the OPs, it has not been pointed out by the complainants in the complaint as to how much deep the pot holes were. Even otherwise, since the tyre got burst after hitting upon the pot hole and due to the fact that the car was being driven at an excessive speed, it cannot be said to be a case of mechanical defect in the car warranting the replacement or refund of the cost of the car. Counsel for the OPs has further contended that the complainants have not adduced any expert evidence to prove that the size of the tyres, which were fitted in the car, were not technically appropriate and in the absence of an expert witness, the allegations in this regard made by the complainant cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, as a goodwill gesture, the tyres were replaced by the OPs, though they were not duty bound to do so. Counsel for the OPs has further pointed out that the complainant has also not given as to how much air pressure was there in the tyre when the same got burst. Therefore, the OPs cannot be held responsible for the bursting of the tyre as the alleged accidents happened due to negligent driving of the car.

13. We have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions of the parties.

14. In this case, the grievance of the complainants is that the Ford Ecosport Platinum Edition car purchased from the OPs on 24.07.2017 suffers from an acute mechanical defect. The car was fitted with Diamond-cut 17 inch alloy wheels of Apollo Tyre company. The size of the tyres is 205/50r17. Within a week of the purchase of the car i.e. on 27.07.2017, the right front tyre got burst. On 24.09.2017 again, the right front tyre got burst. It is further alleged that on 04.11.2017, the same problem reoccurred when the complainant was returning from Jalandhar and it was noticed that the right front tyre has swollen due to impact of pothole. As a result, OP2 replaced all the five tyres with new Apollo tyres. However, on 28.11.2017, again when the complainant was returning from Moga, the car hit upon a small pothole and the right front tyre again burst and the alloy wheel also split into two pieces. It has further been alleged in the complaint that subsequent to that no action has been taken by the OPs to rectify the defect and the car was towed by roadside assistance van and delivered to Bhagat Ford. It has also been alleged that there was some serious problem in the tyres and the car’s suspension. It has further been alleged in the compliant that Ford had sold three more similar cars in the year 2017 and all the three cars were having same problem.

15. In order to prove the allegations made in the complaint, the complainants have submitted their affidavit Ex. CA where the entire case as set forth in the complaint has been reiterated. It has further been alleged that through RTI application, the complainants obtained information from Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune, which confirmed that no tests were conducted before approving 205/50r17 size of tyres for Ford Ecosport car. It has also been stated in the affidavit Ex. CA that the problem has occurred due to tyre size being incompatible with the vehicle. According to the complainant, tyre size 205/50r17 has width of 205mm with a rim diameter of 17 inches. A profile size of 102.50mm on a 17 inch diameter wheel has a very small sidewall which results in less travel distance between the tyre and the rim whenever the tyre hits the road. Due to extra pressure being levied on the smaller sidewall in this size of tyre, it keeps bulging/bursting repeatedly. The complainants have further stated in the affidavit that after consulting with the third party expert, they requested the Ops to change the size from 205/50r17 to 215/55r17 or 225/55r17, but they failed to do so. The complainants have further stated in the affidavit that they came across one article on automobile forum Team-BHP.com, which also highlights the tyre problem being faced by car owners with regard to R17 size tyres. The complainants have found on the internet that more than 25 users reported the same issue with regard to the vehicle of tyre size and over a period of last one year, more than 120 owners have reported problems with their Ford Ecospot variants having pre-installed 17 inch tyres and alloy wheels. The complainants have further referred to the information available on the following websites.

(i) https://www.bcmtouring.com/forums/threads/maybe-ford-has-the-best-customer-service-or-not-got-faulty-tyres-changed-by-ford.74628/

(ii)

17. On the contrary, the OPs have examined Mirza Qaiser Iqbal Beg, the authorized signatory of OP1, who in his affidavit Ex. RA1 has stated that the complainants cannot be allowed to assume the role of an automobile engineer while alleging that 17 inch wheels should not have been fitted with 205/50r17 size tyre. According to this witness, the car was admittedly being driven at a high speed in contravention to the permitted speed limits prescribed by the State of Punjab in terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 112 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the notification bearing No.10/52/2006-2YT2/7062 dated 27.09.2007 issued by Governor of Punjab wherein 80 Km per hour is the maximum prescribed speed on National highways and 70 Km per hour at State Highways and 50 Km per hour within municipal areas. The complainants have candidly admitted that the car was being driven at a speed of more than 80 km per hour when it hit at pothole resulting in bursting of the tyre. It has also been stated in the affidavit Ex. RA1 that the warranty obligation of the manufacturer is only to the extent of repair or replacement of the part, which is suffering from any manufacturing defect within the time limits of the warranty. Therefore, the complaint is false and frivolous and not maintainable and it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service.

18. The OPs have further submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Ravinder Singh, Service Manager of Garyson Auto Pvt. Ltd. In the said affidavit, it is stated that in the warranty of the vehicle Ex. RW2/A, it is specifically mentioned at serial no.21 that the OPs would not be liable for any defect in battery, audio system, tyres and tubes originally equipped on ford vehicles, which are warranted directly by the manufacturer and not by the Ford. Despite this, the complainants have not impleaded Apollo Tyres as a party in this case. It has further been stated that the tyres were replaced in as a goodwill gesture on the instructions of OP1. Moreover, the tyres have been damaged due to external impact, which is even otherwise not covered under the warranty. It is further stated that it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

19. From the evidence available on record, it is evident that the front right tyres of the car in questions got burst/bulged on as many as four occasions within a very short span of time after the purchase of the car. Now the question arises whether the cause of this problem is due to some mechanical defect in the car itself, which may warrant the return of the car to the manufacturer and refund of the value of the car to the complainants. In order to prove this point, the complainants have not examined any expert witness or an auto engineer, who could state on oath and explain that recurrence bursting/bulging of right front tyres has been due to a manufacturing defect in the car. Therefore, this Commission is not able to agree with the complainants and to subscribe to the view that there has been a manufacturing defect in the car of such nature that it does not remain pliable on the road and is liable to be returned to the manufacturer.

20. However, in our considered opinion, the complainants cannot be non suited merely on account of non examination of an expert witness. It has not been denied by the complainants that the problem pointed out by the complainant has not recurred from time to time or that the same was not pointed out to the OPs. Rather, admittedly, at one point of time, the tyres were replaced by OP2 on the instructions of OP1 though it was claimed to have been done as a goodwill gesture and it was not the liability of the OPs. Even though the complainants have not examined any expert witness, but the complainants did their bit and tried to find out some material supporting their case on the internet where they came across many complaints by many other users of the same variant of Ecosport. On the site called Motoroctane.com, the Ford Company is said to have acknowledged that there is an issue that 17 inch tyres on the Ecosport get a bulge close to the side wall. It is further mentioned that this cannot be an issue with the vehicle, but something to do with the tyre rather than the Ecosport car. On another site i.e. Zigwheels.com, some users have reported the problems with R17 size of cars. Similarly, on the website Cardekho.com there is a complaint by user of Ecosport Platinum model with regard to 205/50r17 size of tyres, which are said to be not suitable for interior roads in India. Similarly, on website Change.org, there are the complaints by many users regarding bursting/bulging of the tyres in the Ecosport Ford car. It cannot be disputed that the material on internet and the aforesaid websites cannot be said to be a conclusive piece of evidence nor the same can be used as a substitute in the testimony of an expert witness or an auto engineer. Yet, in our considered view, a judicial note can be taken of the material on the websites, as referred to above to arrive at a finding that there were some problem, may be in the size of the tyre chosen for Ecosport variant as in the case of the complainants, the problem of bursting/bulging of the tyre took place as many as four times, but the same problem has been highlighted by many other users on the internet and at one place, the same is said to have acknowledged by the Ford company also.

21. Even if the complainants have not examined an expert witness, in the context, it is worth mentioning that OPs have also not examined an expert witness. Once it has been unequivocally alleged by the complainants that the problem of the bursting/bulging of the tyre took place as many as four occasions and the same problem was reported on the internet by the many other users also, the onus stood shifted to the OPs to rebut that there was no problem with regard to the size of the tyre or suspension of the car. The OPs could have examined some expert witness especially when OP1 is the manufacturer of the car and there must not have been any dearth of expert witness available with it, who could prove with logical reasons that the size of tyres of the car was selected after conducting appropriate tests regarding their compatibility with the wheels. Therefore, in our considered view, adverse inference ought to be drawn even against the OPs for not clarifying by producing expert witness that the defect pointed out by the complainants was non-existent and it had occurred due to certain other reasons, attributable to the complainants or the drivers of the car in question.

22. As regards the plea raised by the OPs that the complainants are liable to be non suited on account of the fact that as condition of warranty, the manufacturer of the tyre was responsible and since Apollo Tyres has not been impleaded as party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Even this contentions raised on the part of the OPs does not appear to be tenable. The OPs cannot be allowed to get away with the plea of non impleadment of the manufacturer of the tyre, as it is the bounden duty of the OPs, being the manufacturer of the car that the tyres or other parts used in the car are proper, durable as well as suitable after checking all the technicalities. As pointed out above, the OPs have not produced an expert witness to show that any tests were conducted to check the viability of the 17 inch tyre for use on the wheels of Ecosport variant, the OPs cannot be allowed to eschew their responsibility in entirety by putting the entire blame on the manufacturer of the tyres. Apart from this, the fact remains that there was a problem in the car especially the tyres, which persistently recurred and it was bounden duty of the OPs to have responded and redressed the grievance of the complainants by suitable measures.

23. The counsel for the OPs has further pointed out that admittedly the complainants have been driving the car at a speed of 85 to 90 KM per hour when the right front tyre burst after hitting upon a pot hole. According to the counsel for the OPs, as per the notification issued by the Government of Punjab Ex. RW1/2, the maximum speed limit on National and State Highways is 80 KM per hour. The counsel for the OPs further contended that since the car was being driven at an excessive speed, this shows that the complainants themselves have been negligently driving the car and bursting of the tyres could not be attributed to any mechanical defect in the car. Even this contention of the learned counsel for the OPs does not appear to be tenable. No doubt, the maximum speed limit on National Highways as per the notification Ex. RW1/2 may be 80 KM per hour, but it is commonly known fact that with the introduction of latest technology in automobiles, the cars are being run on National and State Highways at a speed of much more than 80 KM per hours. It has also not been pointed out anywhere in the manual of the car that the car should not be run at a speed more than 80 KM per hours or otherwise it would give problems such as bursting/bulging of tyres. Therefore, merely because the complainants have run the car at a speed slightly more than prescribed, this by itself be sufficient to absolve the OPs of all their liabilities with regard to defect in the repeated bulging/bursting of the tyres.

24. In the light of the facts and circumstances of this case, though no case is made out for the refund the value of the car, but it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to replace all the tyres of the car along with front right rim at zero costs. In addition to that the OPs be further made to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainants.

25. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed to the extent that the OPs are directed to return the car after replacing all the tyres of the car along with front right rim/alloy wheel at zero costs. OPs shall further pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) and costs of litigation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the complainants. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

26. File be indexed and consigned to record room.