BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 18/09/2012

Date of Order : 13/02/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 571/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :-

The complainant is the proud owner of a Santro car bearing Registration No. KL-42A-9202. The complainant purchased 2 tyres for his car from the 2^nd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party at a total price of Rs. 5,700/-. The opposite parties promised one lakh kilometers as mileage for the tyres. The complainant has been maintaining the vehicle properly and conducting wheel alignments in time without default. The newly bought tyres got damaged by abnormal wear and tear when the vehicle ran only for 14,500/- Kms., though the opposite parties offered one lakh Kms. The complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the defective tyre. The opposite parties rejected the claim of the complainant stating it was caused due to mal-functioning of wheel alignment and not due to manufacturing defect. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the tyres together with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party is as under :-

The complainant purchased two tyres manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party the dealer. The 1^st opposite party in its advertisements inform to the customer about the test results showing the tyre lasting one lakh kilometer and above, which are of course under test conditions and standard roads. Tyre mileage is variable and is dependable on many factors such as road conditions, conditions of the vehicle, maintenance of recommended inflation pressure in tyres, driving habits etc. On 13-09-2012, the engineer of the 1^st opposite party examined the tyres and found that the tyres are free from any manufacturing defect and that the tyres suffer from one side wear, which has occurred due to improper wheel alignment. The complaint is not maintainable against the 1^st opposite party and is liable to be dismissed.

3. In spite of receipt of notice from this Forum, the 2^nd opposite party did not respond to the same and the case proceeded ex-parte against the 2^nd opposite party. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 1^st opposite party. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party.

4. The points that emanated for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the tyres in question?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant?

5. Point No. i. :- Admittedly on 04-01-2011, the complainant purchased 2 tyres for his car from the 2^nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party evident from Ext. A2 cash receipt. According to the complainant, he could ply the car by using the above tyres only for 14,500/- Kms., which is totally against the rosy promises and advertisements of the opposite parties. The 1^st opposite party maintains that the tyres are free from any manufacturing defect and the defect, if any has been caused due to mis-alignment of the wheels of the vehicle.

6. Indisputably at the instance of the complainant, the technician of the 1^st opposite party examined the tyres and issued Ext. A1 spot inspection report. The observation as per Ext. A1 is as follows :

“Checked tyres do not suffer from any manufacturing defect. Hence not adjustable. One side wear.”

We are not agree with the above findings of the 1^st opposite party, especially since the complainant subjected his car for alignment checking that too with the 2^nd opposite party and with the authorised service centre of the manufacturer of the car on the following occasions :

Sl. No.	Date	Checking conducted by	Exhibits
	01-03-2011	2nd opposite party	A2
	27-05-2011	Dealer of the car	A3
	26-07-2011	2nd opposite party	A4
	22-02-2012	Dealer of the car	A5
	09-03-2012	2nd opposite party	A6

7. The frequency and the promptness showed by the complainant shows that there is no inadequacy on his part in the maintenance of the vehicle. As much as, he had subjected to the inspection of the same to the dealer of the manufacturer. Ext. A8 is the copy of the website of the 1^st opposite party. As per Ext. A8 the features and benefits of the particular tyre is stated as follows :

“FEATURES AND BENEFITS

Goodyear Dur Plus tyres with Tred Life Technology can last upto 30% longer than other competitors, giving you more than 100,000 Km. of service.

New Generation Wide Face Cavity puts more wearable rubber in contact with the road for longer tread life.

Maximised – Rubber Volume uses larger road contact area and deeper treads to increase available wearable rubber volume, maximizing the usable life of the tyre.”

8. The 1^st opposite party contended that the above advertisement is subject to certain conditions, but the same does not find a place in Ext. A8. In the above circumstances, we are only to hold that the defect of the tyres has been caused due to its inherent manufacturing defect, especially when the 1^st opposite party did not take any steps to substantiate their contention in this Forum except for submitting a unilateral contention.

9. Point No. ii. :- We believe that the primary grievance of the complainant can be met by an order to replace the disputed tyres with new ones.

10. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally replace the disputed tyres with brand new ones, provided the complainant pays the difference in price, if any at the present market value of the same.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13^th day of February 2012.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant’s Exhibits :-

Opposite party’s Exhibits :: Nil

=========