BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 43/2011 Filed on 14.02.2011
ORDER DATED: 05.01.2018
Complainants:
- Philomina Ben Hedwick, T.C 23/1661, BNRA-55, Jawahar Nagar, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.
- Ben Hedwick Netto, ..do.. ..do..
(By Adv. Victor D’Silva)
Opposite parties:
- Hyundai Motors India Ltd., represented by the Managing Director, Chennai South Regional Office, NP 54, Devepoped plot, Thiru Vika Industrial Estate, Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
(By Adv. Rakesh Thampan)
- Hilton Hyundai, represented by the Managing Director, N.H By-pass, Eanchakkal, Thiruvananthapuram-695 008.
(By Adv. K.G. Mohandas Pai)
- Apollo Tyres Private Ltd., represented by the Managing Director, 6th Floor, Cherupurshpam Building, Shanmugham Road, Cochin-682 011.
(By Adv. Pallichal S. Aswakumar)
This C.C having been heard on 06.11.2017, the Forum on 05.01.2018 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. R. SATHI: MEMBER
The complainants purchased a Hyundai i20 car bearing Reg. No. KL-01 AW-7576 on 11.02.2010 from 2nd opposite party who is the authorized dealer of 1st opposite party. The registration was in the name of 1st complainant. On 27.08.2010 while returning a trip from Bangalore after the second free service at the service centre, noticed a bulge to the side of the front right tyre of the said vehicle. The complainants immediately reported the matter to the 2nd opposite party in person and through mails to rectify the defect of the said vehicle. But the 2nd opposite party shifted the burden to the 3rd opposite party manufacturers of the tyres and send the tyres to them for inspection. Then the 3rd opposite party sent a letter to the 2nd opposite party rejecting the claim by stating that there was no manufacturing defect in the said tyre. According to them the bulge is due to some external impact. After the trip the said vehicle was water washed on 28.08.2010 by the 2nd opposite party and there weren’t any sign of damages on the vehicle due to any external impact. Moreover no fault was found in the wheel balancing and wheel alignment to suggest an external impact. Neither Apollo tyres nor the dealer gave proper explanation for the bulging of the tyre. On scrutinizing the warranty booklet the complainants found that the front right tyres fitted in the car is of batch No. 4609 and all other tyres are of batch No. 4709. This is a negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2 while a new car being delivered to the complainants. The tyres are also the part and parcel of the vehicle and the complainants are forced to purchase a new tyre from Bridgestone tyres worth Rs. 4,100/- to use the said vehicle. The complainants also sent legal notice to the opposite parties. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties are liable to compensate for the mental agony and suffering of the complainants. Thus the complainants approached this Forum for directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- each to the complainants by way of compensation with cost.
Opposite parties accepted notice and filed version.
The 1st opposite party filed version contending that the 2nd opposite party the authorized dealer of 1st opposite party delivered to M/s Palmco Enterprises in perfect condition as any other new car, without any technical or mechanical defect. It is submitted that as per the owners’ manual and service booklet provided to the customer at the time of purchase of vehicles, tyres and tubes which are originally equipped on Hyundai vehicles are warranted directly by the respective manufactures and not by the Hyundai Motors India Ltd. As per the information available from the 2nd opposite party, on 28.08.2010, the complainants’ car was reported at the workshop of 2nd opposite party with the problem of front right tyre bulging. The said tyre was sent to the 3rd opposite party for inspection and 3rd opposite party inspected the tyre and found that the problem in the said tyre is not due to any manufacturing defect and henceforth the same is not covered under the customer friendly claim policy. The 3rd opposite party noted that the probable cause of failure in the tyre are overloading, over inflation pressure, sudden impacts, distortion of tyre casing caused by striking against an obstacle. The alleged problem of front tyre bulging was reported on 28.08.2010 i.e; after 8 months from the date of purchase. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice or negligence on the side of this opposite party. It is submitted that the 2nd opposite party an authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party provided the complainants with prompt and efficient service whenever the complainant reported the car in question.
The 2nd opposite party filed version stating that this opposite party delivered the car to the complainant in the same condition and fitting as supplied by the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party take up the matter with the 3rd opposite party to lodge claim as a matter of goodwill. But on 31.08.2010 the 3rd opposite party issued claim rejection letter repudiating the claim, which was informed to the complainants directly with a copy to this opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is duty bound to inform the manufacturer of car as well as the manufacturer of tyre which was duly done by this opposite party without any delay or fail. The tyre manufacturer repudiated the claim showing reasons. If the complainant is eligible for replacement of tyre on such terms from 3rd opposite party it is purely a matter between them. The tyres were not defective at the time of delivery or on the date of alleged finding of defect on the tyre by the complainant. This opposite party is not liable for any relief claimed. If the allegations are true the only inconvenience caused in the purchase of a new tyre for Rs. 4,100/- and nothing else. The relief sought are fanciful and imaginary. Hence complaint is only liable to be dismissed.
The 3rd opposite party filed version denying the allegation of the complainants. It is stated that the cause of defect was found as impact break which causes due to overloading, over inflation pressure, sudden impacts, distortion of tyre casing caused by striking against an obstacle. No manufacturing defect was found. This opposite party as per customer friendly policy of the company replace the tyre only having manufacturing defects on pro-rate basis. It is further submitted that there is hardly difference of only few days in manufacturing of batch No. 4609 and 4709. Hence tyres manufactured in these two batches may be fitted in the same vehicle. There is no negligence on the part of this opposite party and this opposite party did not receive any legal notice. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the side of this opposite party. Hence complaint may be dismissed against this opposite party.
The 2nd complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief and examined as PW1. The documents marked as Exts. P1 to P9. The 2nd opposite party filed affidavit in lieu of chief.
Issues:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
Issues (i) & (ii):- The complainants purchased a Hyundai i20 car bearing Reg. No. KL-01 AW-7576 on 11.02.2010 from 2nd opposite party who is the authorized dealer of 1st opposite party as per Ext. P2. The registration was in the name of 1st complainant. On 27.08.2010 while returning a trip from Bangalore after the second free service at the service centre, noticed a bulge to the side of the front right tyre of the said vehicle. The complainants immediately reported the matter to the 2nd opposite party in person and through mails to rectify the defect of the said vehicle. But the 2nd opposite party shifted the burden to the 3rd opposite party manufacturers of the tyres and send the tyres to them for inspection. Then the 3rd opposite party sent a letter to the 2nd opposite party rejecting the claim by stating that there was no manufacturing defect in the said tyre. According to them the bulge is due to some external impact. After the trip the said vehicle was water washed on 28.08.2010 by the 2nd opposite party as per Ext. P4 and there weren’t any sign of damages on the vehicle due to any external impact. Moreover no fault was found in the wheel balancing and wheel alignment to suggest an external impact. Neither Apollo tyres nor the dealer gave proper explanation for the bulging of the tyre. On scrutinizing the warranty booklet the complainants found that the front right tyres fitted in the car is of batch No. 4609 and all other tyres are of batch No. 4709 as per Ext. P6. This is a negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2 while a new car being delivered to the complainants. The tyres are also the part and parcel of the vehicle and the complainants are forced to purchase a new tyre from Bridgestone tyres worth Rs. 4,100/- as per Ext. P7 to use the said vehicle. The tyre was sent to 3rd opposite party and 3rd opposite party sent Ext. P5 letter showing the rejection of the claim. The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed version and all opposite parties deny the allegation of the manufacturing defect. The opposite parties stated that the complainant purchased the car on 11.02.2010 and after the second free service went for a trip to Bangalore. The complainants stated that while returning on 27.08.2010 they noticed a bulge on the side of the front right tyre. The 2nd opposite party sent the tyre to 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party sent a reply to the complainant that there was no manufacturing defect and bulge is due to internal crack in the tyre and that may be caused due to some external impact. Hence the complainants approached this Forum. The complainants filed commission application for sending the tyre for expert opinion. The application was allowed for sending the tyre to Kottayam, but no further steps were taken by the complainants. The 2nd complainant at the time of cross examination stated that there is no document to show manufacturing defect with the tyre. On going through documents and statements there is no evidence to show the manufacturing defect of the tyre. Moreover the complainants did not produce any evidence to show that the difference in batch number of the tyre affects the quality of the tyre. There is no evidence produced from the side of the complainants to show deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence complaint is only to be dismissed on the ground of lack of evidence.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 5th day of January 2018.
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 43/2011
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Ben Hedwick Netto
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Special Power of Attorney
P2 - Vehicle sale bill dated 11.02.2010
P3 - Copy of R.C Book
P4 - Copy of cash invoice dated 28.08.2010
P5 - Copy of report dated 31.08.2010
P6 - Copy of vehicle record sheet
P7 - Copy of Retail Invoice dated 08.02.2011
P8 - Memorandum & Articles of Association
P9 - Copy of Return
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
