D.O.F. 27.12.2011
D.O.O. 20.07.2012
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 20th day of July, 2012.
C.C.No.391/2011
Venkiteshan T.R.,
Cera, Quarter No.264,
Naval Academy P.O., : Complainant
Ezhimala,
Kannur District – 670 310.
1. Manager,
‘New Balance’, Wheel alignment battery,
Perumba, Payyannur,
Kannur – 670 307.
2. Managing Director, : Opposite Parties
Good Year India Limited,
Madhura Road, Ballabgarh,
Faridabad, Hariyana – 121 004
(Rep. by Adv. V.K. Rajeev)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari, Member.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family.
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a tubeless tyre for his car having No. KL-59C-2816 on 05.12.2011. On 10.12.2011 during his journey to Sabarimala along with his father and daughter, the tyre was burst out when it traveled about 300 Kms. The complainant on 13.12.11 contacted the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to report to 2nd opposite party. On 17.12.11 the Service Engineer of 2nd opposite party inspected the tyre and supplied a spot inspection report and instructed to contact the Sales Manager through e-mail. But he had issued a reply denying the claim of the complainant. The defect was caused due to manufacturing defect of the tyre. The complainant had suffered so much of financial, mental and physical hardship due to deficient service of opposite parties for which opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant and to replace the tyre with a defect free one. Hence this complaint.
In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum, 2nd opposite part appeared and filed their version. 1st opposite party remains absent, eventhough proper notice was issued to him and hence he was called absent and set exparty.
2nd opposite party filed version admitting that the complainant had purchased tyre from 1st opposite party and submitted that it had been working in perfect manner since their purchase. Admittedly the tyres had run about 300 Kilometres and hence the question of tyres abruptly developing manufacturing defect does not arise as alleged. The defect, if any so developed in the tyres must have been due to any reason except occurrence of manufacturing defect. This opposite party is governed by its own warranty policy extended to its esteemed customers and adheres to the same. The 2nd opposite party deputed an engineer soon after receiving the complaint and submitted a spot inspection report dated 17.12.11 stating that the tyres do not suffer from manufacturing defect and hence not adjustable under warranty policy. Side wall impace break observed. There is an external side wall cut due to impact which is caused due to road hazards leading impact on side wall. The burst is caused due to road hazard’s leading impact on side wall and hence burst appears to be is due to external factor and not due to manufacturing defect. So the tyres cannot be replaced under the warranty policy of 2nd opposite party. So there is no merit in the above case and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above contentions the following issued have been raised for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts. A1 to A3 and B1, B1(a), (b), (c) marked.
Complainant’s case is that the new tyre purchased from opposite parties become defective when it run a 300 Kms and this was happened due to manufacturing defect of the tyre. In order to substantiate the case he was examined as PW1 and documents such as bill dated 05.12.11, spot inspection report, letter sent by complainant, copy of e-mail complaint and power of Attorney etc were produced. In order to disprove the case the opposite party examined DW1 and documents such as Technical Service manual of good year tyres, and page No.40, figure 3 and page 43 of the above service manual also produced. Admittedly the complainant had purchased a new tyre from 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the tyre purchased by the complainant. According to the complainant tyre became defective due to manufacturing defect. But as far as opposite parties are concerned the tyre became defective due to road hazards leading impact on side wall and to substantiate their contentions they have relied upon the spot inspection report filed by DW1 and according to him the defect was not because of any manufacturing defect but due to external impact. According to him, the defect was caused due to the breaking of Nylon layers upon the side wall of tyre. But he deposed during cross examination that “Nylon s]m«n-bXp sImmWv external impact F¶p ]d-bp-¶-Xv.” He further deposed that Sb-dn\v hà manufacturing defect Ds-¦nepw Nylon broke out sN¿m³ km[-y-X-bp-v.” From this deposition it is clear that DW1 Service Engineer of 2nd opposite party had reported that he had reported the cause of damage as external impact only because of the reason of breaking of Nylon threads. He has not stated any other reason for reporting so. At the same time he deposed that the Nylon thread can be broken due to manufacturing defect. Above all he deposed that “Hcp Sb-dn\v 10,000 Intem aoä-dn IqSp-X HmSmw.” Admittedly the tyre has run only 300 Km and it has warranty of 5 years. So from the above discussion it is seen that there is no concrete evidence before us to come to the conclusion that the tyre was burst out due to the external impact. So considering the fact that the tyre has five years warranty and it has run only 300 Km and in the absence of concrete evidence that the defect is caused due to external impact, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get replaced the damaged tyre. So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence they are liable to replace the damaged tyre with a new one with `1000 as cost of the proceedings to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to receive the same and order passed accordingly.
