Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/530/2017

Rishi Tandon - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ford India Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Jasdev S. Thind Adv.

09 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,   U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	530 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	14.07.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	09.07.2018

 

 

 

 

Rishi Tandon s/o Sh.Ashok Tandon, R/o Set No.2, Block-B, Verma Apartment, Sanjauli, Shimla 171006

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Ford India Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd Floor,   Building 10 C, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-II, Gurugram 122002 through its Regional Head.

2]  Saluja Ford, Plot No.52, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

3]  MRF, 37 Chandigarh-Panchkula Rd, Manimajra, Chandigarh 160101 through its Managing Director.  

                          ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.J.S.Thind, Adv. for complainant.

 Sh.Ravi Nayak, Adv. for OP No.1.

 None for Opposite Party No.2.

 Sh.H.S.Parwana, Adv. for OP No.3.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant after taking loan from State Bank of India, on 22.7.2016 purchased vehicle Ford Ecosports from OP No.2 (Sub Dealership), which was earlier situated at Vaknaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.  It is averred that on the first service of the vehicle with OP No.2 when the car had covered the distance of only 2848 kms, the complainant reported the problem of noise and slight uneven wearing on the middle portion of the tyres of the car (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that after inspection the service manager described that the noise is because of dryness of back door holders and after greasing the door there will be no noise problem and the condition of the tyres stated as normal.  It is also averred that in fact the noise problem was not solved and middle portion of all the four tyres started wearing which causes uneven balance of the vehicle and sometimes the tyres started skidding/slipping. This was reported to the Opposite Party No.2 through e-mail on 30.1.2017, but it was not replied (Ann.C-2). Then on 21.2.2017 (Ann.C-4), the complainant took the vehicle to Opposite Party NO.2 for 2^nd service and reported the said problem again, whereupon the Service Manager inspected the vehicle and after balancing & alignment of the wheels, assured that the tyres are now in proper condition and the complainant will not face any problem.  Moreover, the complainant was assured that in future if the same problem arises again, the tyres of the vehicle will be replaced.  On 21.4.2017, the complainant through e-mail (Ann.C-5), informed Opposite Party No.1 about excessive wearing of all four tyres from the middle part i.e. thread wearing, which is making the vehicle unstable. Thereafter, as per instructions, the complainant visited the sub-dealer of Opposite Party NO.2 at Solan (HP), where the concerned Engineer inspected the tyres, admitted the problem with tyres and assured that after taking approval from the Head Office of Opposite Party NO.2 at Chandigarh, he will replace the tyres. However, when nothing was done by the Opposite Parties, the complainant again sent e-mail to OPs on 9.5.2017 (Ann.C-6), whereupon the Opposite Party NO.2 asked the complainant to bring the vehicle for inspection of tyres on 12.5.2017. The complainant went to the said dealer for inspection of the tyres of vehicle, but the expert of Opposite Parties inspected the tyres in very casual manner only by noting the serial number of the tyres on roadside.  However, the complainant was surprised to see the inspection report dated 12.5.2017 from Opposite Party No.2 wherein the expert has turned down their liability by giving flimsy reason of “unequal contact pressure exerted at the tyres/road contact area” (Ann.C-7). It is submitted that the report prepared by the expert was without any technical inspection/reasoning and was a mere formality only to avoid the liability. It is also submitted that on 30.5.2017 (Ann.C-8) the complainant sent e-mail to OPs No.1 & 2 asking them to rectify the problem of tyres but nothing positive was done by them. It is further submitted that the complainant informed the Opposite Parties regarding the uneven wearing of all the four tyres at the same time but they as usual always tried to escape from their liability.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

 

2]      The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply stating that the relationship between the OP No.1 & OP No.2 is purely on principal to principal basis wherein each party is responsible for its own action and neither of them is responsible for the acts or the actions of the other.  It is submitted that any grievance with respect to deficiency in service with respect to after sales services cannot be made against the OP No.1 as it has nothing to do with after sale service so provided by the authorised dealer.  It is also submitted that the issues pertaining to defects or workmanship of tyres are covered by the warranty so provided by the respective tyre manufacturer and the New Vehicle Warranty clearly excludes tyres from its ambit and hence no liability can be fasten upon Opposite Party NO.1 towards repair/replacement of defective tyres with new tyres as alleged.  It is stated that the complainant is having issue with Opposite Party No.3 i.e. MRF and the Opposite Party NO.1 has been unnecessarily dragged into the present dispute. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The Opposite Party No.2 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the Opposite Party No.2 has nothing to do with the wear and tear and road life of the tyres.  It is stated that all the four tyres have worn out, but the same cannot be due to any manufacturing defect in the vehicle sold and serviced by the OP No.2.  It is also stated that the tyres have not been manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 Company or Opposite Party No.2, as such Opposite Party No.2 cannot be held liable for any defects in the tyres, if any, and in case there are any defects, as alleged by the complainant, such defects have to be looked into by the manufacturer of the said tyres i.e. Opposite Party No.3.  Other allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

         The Opposite Party No.3 has filed the reply stating that there is no report of any expert to the effect that there is any manufacturing defect which occurred due to use of defective material or faulty workmanship.  It is stated that in case any complaint is received from the customer directly or through dealer regarding defective tyres, such tyres are required to be produced in the workshop of Opposite Party No.3 for inspection and examination, spelling out the actual cause of such damage by the technical expert.  However, the complainant brought the defective tyres to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 only and did not bring the damage tyres to the notice of Opposite Party No.3.  It is submitted that the Service Engineer, who inspected the tyres of the vehicle of the complainant at Supreme Tyre, Solan reported the damage due to “uneven wear/spotty wear due to unequal contact pressure exerted at the road contact area.” It is also submitted that the damage to the tyres is not due to manufacturing defect. Denying other allegations, the Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the assertions made in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

 

6]       The complainant purchased the car Ford Eco-sports on 22.7.2016 from M/s Saluja Ford through its sub-dealer at Vaknaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.  The complainant took his car for first service on 16.9.2016 to Opposite Party No.2 at Chandigarh. The complainant has raised the specific issue regarding problems in tyres when the car had covered only 2848 kilometers (Ann.C-1) in less than two months (Invoice dt.16.9.2016 Ann.C-1).  When the car was taken to Service Centre in Chandigarh with Opposite Party No.2 on 21.9.2017 for second service, the complainant again reiterated his grievance and reported the damage of tyres of the car (Ann.C-4).  The complainant on 21.2.2017, when the car had just covered 9752 Kms., got wheel alignment done, but the problem still subsists with the tyres of the car.  The OP No.2/ M/s Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd. ignored the grievance of the complainant just by mentioning no action required with reference to the tyres issue despite the fact that the Car was under warranty period and the tyres were deteriorated day-by-day and not in proper usable condition.  The Inspection Report dated 12.5.2017 prepared by Himanshu Yadav, Technical Service Person, who inspected the tyres, have admitted the fact of damage of car tyres due to uneven wear. 

 

7]       Mr.Irfan Shakeel, T.S.E., MRF Ltd. in his affidavit dated 3.10.2017, submitted in this complaint, has stated in Para No.14 & 15  that “The tyres being a rubber product can be damaged for any other reason other than manufacturing defect, the life/performance of tyres depends upon many factors like AIR pressure, Driving habits, Road Conditions, load carried, mechanical conditions or irregularities of the vehicles speed of the vehicle, nature of Terrain i.e. Ground level, hilly area, winding road, positon of the tyres on the vehicle, and external objects with which the tyres may come in-contact while in motion. Thus the complainant’s tyres might have been suffered due to anyone or more of these eventualities.”

 

8]       The Ford India Pvt. Ltd./OP No.1, who is the manufacturer of the Car in question, in its reply has stated that “Ford India Private Limited i.e. Respondent No.1 does not provide any warranty for any defects in material and workmanship of tyres as the same are covered by the respective tyre manufacturer’s warranty which in the present case is provided by, Respondent No.3, MRF. Moreover, the terms of the New Vehicle warranty specifically excludes tyres from its ambit, being a consumable replacement part prone to wear out due to normal wear and tear.  The alleged defect in the tyres of the vehicle cannot be equated to any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and as such the answering respondent is not liable for any deficiency of service as envisaged under the Act.”

 

9]                The Ford India Pvt. Ltd. has given 24 Month New Vehicle Warranty (Ann.R-1/2) and placed on record Warranty and Service Guide in support of its assertions. The Warranty and Service Guide (Page No.14) categorically ensure as under:-

“Complete protection from Ford-an easy route to follow

 

From the moment you buy your Ford you can relax that it will be thoroughly protected by Ford Service. Wherever you go, this protection will come with you, giving you worry-free, pleasurable motoring for years to come.

 

Ford protection starts from the moment you receive your new vehicle.

 

Every new Ford vehicle is covered for two year or 1,00,000 kms (whichever occurs earlier) from the vehicle sale date.

 

Quite simply warranty means that any defect due to faulty manufacture or material within the warranty period will be repaired or replaced free of charge by any Authorised Ford Dealer.”

 

10]      Besides the 24 months warranty provided by Opposite Party No.1 for its vehicle, the MRF Company on its website MyTyrePoint.com – displayed its Warranty Policy. On the website, the warranty of MRF tyres is of 3 years against manufacturing defect.

         The Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs- MHA WO NO.7627/JSP (74) dt. 3.8.1974 as notified in Provisional Manual for Central Reserve Police Force, prescribe the normal life span of tyre in plain/Hill area as follows:

 

	Hilly Area	Plain Area
Light vehicle	35000 kms.	45000 kms

 

         The tyres of the car of the complainant have been damaged on use for 2848 Kilometers only, whereas the normal life span in the hilly area for tyres in Light Vehicle is prescribed as 35000 Kms.

 

11]      The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(f) define:-

“defect” means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time  being in force or [under any contract, express or implied, or] as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods;”

 

12]      The analytical examination of complete evidence on record and pleadings and looking into deteriorated condition of the tyres of the car only on running of 2848 Kms at first service, explicitly proves that the tyres fitted in the car of the complainant was having sub-standard material.  Had the tyres were of good quality material, it would not have worn-out within two months just on running of car for 2848 Kms. The Opposite Parties have sold the car in Himachal Pradesh to the complainant for use in hilly terrain.  The Opposite Parties should have been aware of this fact of use of the vehicle in hilly terrain and should have taken steps to use good quality tyres of high standard.  If the tyres have been worn-out at such minimal road mileage without any fault on the part of the owner/driver, for such loss, the Opposite Parties, which includes the manufacturer, are solely responsible for it. The tyres are definitely have manufacturing defect and needs to be replaced being within warranty period. 

 

13]      The OPs No.3/MRF has failed to place on record any evidence in proof of the tyres in question having ISI Mark or meeting out the standard as laid down by Indian Standard Institute. The Opposite Party NO.3 has also failed to place on record any evidence to prove that the tyres before release from the factory had all the quality checks.

 

14]      The contentions raised by OPs No.1 seeking immunity from the liability is unsustainable. The manufacturer has used hundreds of parts made by other ancillary units/companies in the car. The manufacturer at its own preferred to use parts from other companies and as such, has to bear the responsibility in case of any fault/defect in parts of other outer agencies fitted in the car.   

 

15]      There was found no contributory negligence on the part of complainant in use of the car.  The tyres of the complainant have damaged due to its internal manufacturing sub-standard material for which the manufacturer of the car/Ford India as well as manufacturer of the tyres i.e. MRF Company, are responsible. 

 

16]      The judgment dated 16.12.2010 of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Suresh Chand Jain Vs. Service Engineer and Sales Supervisor, MRF Ltd. & Anr., reported 2011(2) CPC 282 and judgment in R.P. No.1688 of 2006, decided on 15.4.2010 in case MRF Limited Vs. Bhalchandra Jamnadas Patel & Ors, as relied upon by the OPs, are not applicable to the facts in issue in the present complaint.

 

17]      Keeping into consideration the facts & circumstances, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the OPs No.1 to 3 are held deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant.   The complaint as such is allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to replace all four defective tyres of the car of the complainant with new one.  The OPs No.1 to 3 are also directed to jointly & severally pay compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

         This order shall be complied with by OPs No.1 to 3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certificate copy of the order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

9^th July, 2018                                            

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER