IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the 5^th  day of    November 2009

CC.78/2007

Simon Parayil,

P.O.Payyavoor.                                               Complainant

1. Manger,

  MRF Ltd,

  KEVI Ware house,

  Varakkal, Temple Road,

  West Hill,   Kozhikode.

 (Rep. by M.K.Associates)                               Opposite parties

2. Managing Director,

   HAR Cars,

   HAR Avenue,

  Chovva, Kannur.

  (Rep. by Adv.M.Preman)

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

            This is a complaint filed under wsection12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to replace the tyre and tube or its price and compensation with cost.

            The case of the complainant in brief is as follow: complainant is the owner of ALTO car KL.13.N.2154 purchased from Har Cars, 2^nd opposite party. On 28.12.06 while he was driving his car the right Front tyre suddenly busted at about 12.30 p>M. Since he was in need of attending a marriage ceremony he continued his journey in an auto and after attending the function returned back. A worker from a nearby workshop named Vijesh replaced the tyre using the steppeni and opinioned that burst was because of manufacturing defect. The damaged tyre and tube entrusted to the manager of Hr Cars on 1.1.07. The manger told him that the same would be replaced within14 days on the same had to be sent by the MRF Company. But when he went again on 20.1.07 to fetch the tyre and tube they told him that he would be informed when they get the same from MRF, Kozhikode. But on 3.2.07 he got a test report from the HAR cars stating that there was no manufacturing defect. Then he went to Har cars on 15.3.07 to collect the rejected tyre and tube but they did not give. Though he asked for the copy of the covering letter sent to MRF, it was not given to complainant. It was a well maintained car as per the instructions. The tyre bursted due to manufacturing defect. Hence this complaint.

            Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version separately. The contents in brief raised in the version are as follows:  1^st opposite party denies that the complainant is the owner of an Alto car which he had brought from Har Cars. The registration number is also denied. The averment regarding the burst of tyre has also been denied. The subject matter tyre size No.145/80 R12 was received for inspection on 24.1.07 from Master tyres, Kannur. Their technical service personal Mr.Sajith Fernandez, thoroughly examined the above product. His examination revealed that the tyre was damaged due to “scoring on side wall’ by coming into contract with some sharp/stationary object while the vehicle was in motion. This is not due to any manufacturing defect of the tyre. A copy of the inspection report was forwarded to the complainant and the dealer M/s, Master tyres, Kannur on 25.1.08. Tyre being a rubber product it cannot be fool proof against impact with external object. The tyre in question is not having any manufacturing defect. Hence the opposite party has no liability to meet any damage. Complainant is not entitled for any relief.

            The brief contents of the  2^nd opposite party are as follows. The complainant had purchased a Maruthi Alto vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party on 6.5.05. He submits that the tyre, battery, light, fittings accessories etc. fitted to the vehicle are warranted to the respective manufactures as per their norms. This opposite party is an authorized dealer of Maruthi vehicles at Kannur. The tyre was bursted due to the improper handling of the vehicle by the complainant. The alleged defective tyre has been sent to the1st opposite party for ascertaining the defect and to do the necessary warranty repair or replacement if entitled. 1^st opposite party returned the tyre stating that there was no manufacturing defect for the tyre. So this opposite party has nothing to do with the complaint of the complainant. The complainant has not revealed the real facts of the case. The alleged mental agony, expense for hiring taxi and phone charges are created stories. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any remedy?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B5.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

            The case of the complainant is that the right front tyre of complainant’s car suddenly bursted out while he was driving his car to attend a marriage ceremony. The tyre was entrusted on 1.1.07 to the2nd opposite party, Har cars from whom he has purchased the car a Maruthi Alto vehicle. 2nd opposite party assured to replace the tyre within 14 days. Finally on 3.2.07 complainant got a test report from the Hr cars stating that there was no manufacturing defect. 2^nd opposite party Har cars admitted all these facts. But 1^st opposite party MRF Ltd. did not admit even complainant t is the owner of the Alto car. Har cars, 2^nd opposite party admitted that complainant had purchased a Maruthi Alto vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party, Har cars. MRF Ltd. states that there is no manufacturing defect for the tyre. According to them the tyre was damaged due to “scoring on side wall” by coming into contract with some sharp/stationary object while the vehicle was in motion. 2^nd opposite party Har cars states that the tyre was bursted due to the improper handling of the vehicle by the complainant. The alleged defective tyre has been sent to 1^st opposite party for ascertaining the defect and to do the necessary warranty repair or replacement if entitled. Complainant adduced evidence by proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination in tune with the pleadings.1^st  opposite party also filed proof affidavit in tune with their pleadings. But 2^nd opposite party, the dealer Har cars did not come forward to adduce evidence. 1^st opposite party filed a petition praying to give direction to produce the tyre before the Forum and also to give direction to complainant to take steps to send the tyre for test to the appropriate laboratory. Complainant produced tyre and tube before the Forum. 1at opposite party was directed to take steps. But 1^st opposite party did not take steps. But afterwards 1^st opposite party again filed petition to appoint an expert to verify the reason for damage caused to the tyre and tube. Petition was allowed and expert was appointed. But no steps were taken by 1^st opposite party. That shows it was not a genuine attempt on the part of 1^st opposite party to take it for test or verification but make an impression that 1^st opposite party was even ready and prepared to take it for examination.

            Complainant adduced evidence in tune with the pleadings. He had adduced evidence what the tyre bursted on running while he was going to attend a marriage function. He preceded his journey by a taxi. The tyre and tube thereafter entrusted with 2nd opposite party Har cars. Complainant also deposed that the Manger of Har cars told him that the same would be replaced within 14 days as the same had to be sent to MRF Company. But it was neither replaced nor repaired But he received inspection report           Inspection docket of tyre and tune sent by MRF  Ltd. marked as Ext.A1(a) and ext.A1(b). this report stated that they cannot offer any replacement as they do not find any manufacturing defect. Ext.A2 is the receipt. Complaint purchased new tyre and tube for Rs.1425/-. Ext.A2 is the receipt. Ext.A3 is the maintenance service record. Ext.A4 (a) and (b) are inspection coupons. He was cross examined for 1^st opposite party. In cross examination he deposed that he was the development officer working in Rubber Board. He has also deposed that at the time of incident the vehicle covered on 10,000 KM and now it has been covered 45000 kms. Complainant was cross examined for 2^nd opposite party also and complainant deposed that 2^nd opposite party was the dealer and other tyres of the vehicle was not having any damage except the tear and wear of usage. He was also deposed that he never used to take the car to go to estate.

            The technical service Engineer filed affidavit in tune with pleadings. The ownership and registration number of complainant’s vehicle has been denied in chief affidavit. The averments with respect to burst of tyre also denied. Opposite parties admitted that the alleged tyre of size 145/80 R12 was received for inspection and was examined by Mr.Sujith Fernadoz, the technical service personal of 1^st oppose party. It was also stated that on examination it was revealed that the tyre was damaged due to scoring on side wall caused due to the tyre coming in to contact with some sharp object while the vehicle was in motion and it was not due to manufacturing defect. Ext.B1 is the letter issued by Master tyre to 1^st opposite party. Ext.B3 (a) and (b) are the copy of the inspection findings. It can be seen that Exts.B1 shows that the defect shown is Edge complaint. But B3 (a) Inspection docket description given is scoring on side wall. But nothing has stated about the edge complainant. Does it mean that there is no edge complaint at all. That only means Exts.B3 (a) Inspection Docket cannot be considered as a reliable document.Ext.B3 (b) shows the defect description as tube failed along with rejected tyre. But chief affidavit does not explain scoring on side wall of the tyre was the reason for the failure of the tube. Opposite parties failed to give a reasonable cause for the defect of the tyre. It cannot be ignored that it has come in evidence that t the time of incident the vehicle was covered only a total running of10000 kms. If so 1^st opposite party is bound give a satisfactory explanation for the defect of tyre and tube.  Opposit party has no case that the vehicle  has got any other defects to the vehicle due to negligent use. 1^st opposite party stated that there is no manufacturing  defect without any basis. The case of the 1st opposite party is that the tyre was examined by Mr.Sujith Fernadoz the technical service person of opposite party. But he was not examined. It is he, who has been competent to give proper evidence to this aspect. The way in which 1^st opposite party dealt with the issue reveals his attitude to avoid the case and not to deal with positively so as to meet the grievances of the consumer. 1^st opposite party pretended to take up the tyre and tube to laboratory to prove the same defect free from manufacturing. The attempt of oppose party to examine by the expert also has not been fruitful. A close observation of the entire facts will reveal that 1^st opposite party was not  sincere in attending the material  with an intention to find the truth but only attempting to create an impression that their dealings are very much proper. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party is liable to pay the bill amount of Ext.A2. Rs.1425/- together with Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of this proceedings.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed directing 1st opposite party to pay Rs.1425/-(Rupees One thousand Four hundred and twenty five only) as price of tyre and tube together with Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of these proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is also entitled to get 10% interest for the entire amount of award from the date of complaint to the realization of the amount. The complainant is at liberty to execute the order on the expiry of 30days in accordance with provisions of consumer protection act.

                                         Sd/-                                Sd/-                        Sd/-

President          Member                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1. Inspection docket dt.24.1.07 issued by OP

A2.Cash bill dt.2.2.07 issued by Star tyres

A3.Copy of maintenance service record

A4.Copy of free inspection coupon

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.Copy of the letter dt.18.1.07 sent by Master Tyres to OP1

B2. to B4.Copies of the inspection dockets acknowledgement, findings and rejection advice

B5.Authorisation letter submitted by OP1.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties

DW1.Joseph Mahalson.P.A.                            /forwarded by order/

                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur