IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE     28^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

       Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

        Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

    CC.No.205/2017

K.Sasidharan, S/o K.S.Krishnan

Residing at “ Athiralayam”,

Pada:South,

Karunagappally P.O., Kollam.

(By Adv.Gangadethan G.) :           Complainant

V/S

MRF Ltd., T.C.No.55/807, 808,809,:Opposite parties

Bharadwaj, Vadika,

Sankar Nagar Road,

Neeramankara, Kaymanam P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram 695 040.

(By Adv. Nair Ajay Krishnan)

2.              The Proprietor.

                 Tharayil Tyres, Lalaji Junction,

                 Karunagappally P.O., Kollam.

    ORDER

Smt.Sandhya Rani, B.Sc, LLB, Member

This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

The complainant has purchased a tyre from 2^nd opposite party Tharayil tyres, Karunagappally the authorized Sales agent of 1^st opposite party MRF Ltd  with size 175/65/R14,82 TZV, 2K RTL, bearing serial number 0917 for his Honda Amaze car bearing Reg.No.KL 23 J 8800.  But on 30.06.2017 while the complainant and his family were travelling from Karunagappally to Ernakulam  by the said car and when they have reached near Alappuzha, that is hardly 50 km from his house, the said tyre bursted due to crack so the complainant had to depend a taxi to proceed to their destination, which incurred wastage of valuable time apart from financial loss.  Thereafter the complainant informed the matter to 2^nd opposite party and as per their direction the said tyre was surrendered before them and they have send the same before 1^st opposite party’s testing centre on 12.07.2017 and the claim of the complainant to replace the damaged tyre was rejected on the basis of 1^st opposite party’s assumptions and presumptions.  Thereafter on 16.08.2017 the complainant has issued advocate notice to opposite parties 1 and 2 by demanding replacement of tyre and compensation for mental agony and pain and suffering caused to the complainant.  Though the same was received by both opposite parties 1^st opposite party alone send reply notice leveling false and baseless grounds.  According to the complainant the cause of damage to the said tyre was due to the manufacturing defect and the opposite parties 1 and 2  are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective tyre with a new one.  The rejection of claim by the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and the same has caused financial loss, mental agony, pain and suffering to the complainant for which the opposite parties are legally bound to compensate.  Hence the complainant has been filed praying to pass an order directing the opposite parties  1) to replace the defective tyre with a new one or the price of the same. 2) to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- being the compensation for mental agony and pain and suffering caused to the complainant.  3) to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- being the expenses of filing  this petition.

The 1^st opposite party denied all the allegations and averments contained in the complaint by contending that the complainant is not maintainable either  in law facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be dismissed inlimini.  That the defective tyre has not been got inspected by the complainant from an appropriate laboratory as it required U/s 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The opposite party had not given any performance guaranty/warranty/assurance regarding tyres to the complainant .  The guaranty/warranty is given only regarding manufacturing defects in the tyres.  It is the normal practice of the 1^st opposite party company that when they have received a complaint either directly

or from the customer or through its Dealer’s Network subject the same for inspection by their trained technical service personnel, and they would give an inspection report stating the actual cause of such damage or defect if any and it is only when such tyre suffers from manufacturing defect, then the opposite party company shall be held liable and not otherwise.  On 13.07.2017 the Trivandrum office of 1^st opposite party received the alleged tyre of size  175/65/R14,82 TZV, 2K RTL, bearing serial number 0917 send by 2^nd opposite party Tharayil Tyres, Karunagappally and a complaint docket No.806577382 was raised and the said tyre was subjected to undergo thorough and detailed examination by Sri.Sijo Jose the technical service personnel of 1^st opposite party having experience in defect analysis of tyres and he has reported that tyre was damaged due to external damage/scoring causing due to sudden impact with sharp object and the said inspection report was send to the complainant.  According to the 1^st opposite party the tyre inspected is of a true and merchantable quality absolutely free from any manufacturing defect.  Thereafter the complainant again insisted for a thorough re inspection of the subject tyre as per docket No.806627268 dated 28.07.2017 and the tyre was thoroughly inspected by the same technician of the 1^st opposite party Mr.Sijo Jose and again revealed that the alleged burst of tyre was due to external damage/scoring caused due to sudden impact with sharp object.  The 1^st opposite party company manufactures largest range of tyres in Indian and enjoys the highest brand preference for superior quality, appearance and long life free from manufacturing defect.  Hence all the allegations made to the contrary in the complaint are hereby denied.  Moreover they are not liable for misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance or accident, normal wear and tear.  The complainant has no right to demand damages or compensation for any accrued losses.  Being a rubber product the tyre can be damaged for any reason other than manufacturing defect like Air pressure, Driving Habits, Road Conditions, Load carried by the vehicle, mechanical condition, improper maintenance of the tyres, overload, speed, ground level, season of the year when the tyre was used etc.like inflation/pressure and external object with which the tyre may come in contact while in motion for all these the manufacturing company will not be liable.  In that way the opposite party had not made any mental agony or financial loss to the complainant as alleged in the complaint.  1^st opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.

In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the tyre claimed to have been purchased by the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party was having any manufacturing defect as alleged?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the complaint from opposite parties 1 and 2 ?
4. Reliefs and costs?

 No oral evidence has been adduced by the complainant though sufficient opportunity was granted.  However the documents produced along with the complaint has been marked Ext.P1 to P4.  No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on the side of opposite parties.  The complainant has not turned up and argued on the merit of the case.  But the learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party has advanced argument.

Point No.1 & 2

For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these two points are considered together.  The following are the admitted facts in this case.   On 30.06.2017 while the complainant along with his family where travelling in his Honda Amaze car from Karunagappally to Ernakulam and when they reached near Alappuzha one of the tyres of the car bursted due to crack so the complainant has to depend on taxi for reaching his destination  at Ernakulam.     Ext.P1 and P2 are claim forwarding dockets would indicate that the said tyre was forwarded to 1^st opposite party  two times through 2^nd opposite party with a request to replace the burst tyre with a new one but he didn’t get that replaced or refunded the price of the same.  Thereafter the complainant caused to send Ext.P3 Advocate notice by stating that the damage of the tyre was due to manufacturing defect but the 1^st opposite party sent Ext.P4 reply notice by totally denying the demand made by the complainant.

The specific allegation of the complainant is that at the time of burst of the tyre it was covered hardly 50 kms only.  So the sudden burst of the tyre is only due to manufacturing defect hence the opposite parties are liable either to replace the defective tyre with a new one or to refund the value of the damaged tyre. 

The 1^st opposite party vehemently opposed the above allegation of the complainant and would contend that being a rubber product tyre can be damaged for any reason other than manufacturing defect like Air pressure, Driving Habits, Road Conditions, Load carried by the vehicle, mechanical condition, improper maintenance, overload, speed, ground level, season of the year when the tyre was used etc.like inflation/pressure and external object with which the tyre may come in contact while in motion, for all these the manufacturing company will not be liable.  That the 1^st opposite party MRF company manufactures the largest range of tyres in Indian and which enjoys the highest brand preference for superior quality, appearance and long life free from any manufacturing defect.

Whenever they have received a complaint regarding damage of tyre,  it is their usual practice to inspect the damaged subject with their trained technical service personnel and after getting a report from them they would act upon the same.  In this case also they have send the alleged tyre size  175/65/R14,82 TZV, 2K RTL, bearing serial number 0917 was undergone thorough and detailed examination by Sri.Sijo Jose, technical service personnel of MRF company (1^st opposite party) having experience in defect analysis of tyres two times on 12.07.2017 and on 27.07.2017 and who has reported that the tyre was damaged due to external damage/scoring causing due to sudden impact with sharp object.

Again Ext.P4 reply notice sent by 1^st opposite party evidencing that the total denial of the demand made by the complainant either to replace or to refund

the price of the burst tyre was due to want of knowledge whether he had purchased MRF tyre for his vehicle from 2^nd opposite party.  It is to be pointed out that the purchase invoice has not been produced there is no whisper regarding the date of purchase and the price of the damaged tyre anywhere in the complaint and no paper regarding warranty is also produced along with the complaint.  That in the absence of purchase invoice it is doubtful when the tyre was purchased and how much the consideration was paid for the same. 

It is further to be pointed out that as per IA 08/2018 filed by 1^st opposite party demanding inspection of the alleged tyre by an approved laboratory at the expense of the complainant, the commission/Forum had allowed the same on condition that the 1^st opposite party shall remit batta required as specified by the laboratory within 3 weeks and the complainant shall produce the tyre before the Forum within 3 weeks and both the parties were also directed to furnish details of the laboratories or authorities which is competent to examine the tyre within 3 weeks.  But the complainant has not produced the defective tyre nor furnished the details of laboratory when the tyre has to be sent for analysis.

On evaluating the entire materials available on record we come to the conclusion that the complainant has not adduced any material to show at least prima facie that the alleged tyre was purchased from the 2^nd opposite party by paying consideration and that the damage of tyre was due to any manufacturing defect as alleged in the complaint.  Complainant failed to establish that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence it can be concluded that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from opposite parties.  We find no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed.

Point No.3

In the result complaint stand dismissed.

No costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 28^th  day of  February 2022.        

S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                       Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1             : Claim forwarding docket (CFD) dated 12.07.2017,

                          Ref.No.30145 issued by dealer

Ext.P2             : Claim forwarding docket (CFD) Ref.No.30147 dated 27.07.2017,                     

Ext.P3             : Advocate Notice send by the complaint dated 16.08.2017

Ext.P4             : Reply notice sent by 1^st opposite party MRF tyres

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil