Before the District Consumer Dispute redressal COMMISSION, Panchkula
Consumer Complaint No. | : | 271 of 2020 |
Date of Institution | : | 08.09.2020 |
Date of Decision | : | 24.08.2021 |
Capt. Parveen Vij resident of H.No.337, Sector-21, Panchkula.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Manager, Apollo Tyres Ltd. Plot No.815, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh-160002.
2. Regional Manager, Regional Headquarters, Apollo Tyres Ltd.7, Institutional Area, Sector-32, Gurgaon-122001.
….. Opposite Parties
Complaint under SecTION 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Before: Mr.Satpal, President.
Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.
Dr.SushmaGarg, Member.
For the Parties: Complainant in person.
Sh.Chaman Lal, Authorised representative of the OPs No.1 & 2.
Order
(SATPAL, president)
1. The complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that the complainant purchased a Maruti Ciaz SHVS ZDI+car from Modern Automobiles, Panchkula on 10th Oct. 2016 and it was fitted with four tyres Alnac 4G, size 195/55 16R, of Apollo Tyre Company with a 5 years warranty. In the month of June, 2020, during the routine service of the car, at the time of wheel alignment and tyre rotation the service centre pointed out that one of the tyre had shown signs of bulging on the one side and they advised that it was a manufacturing defect where the tyre side wall had proven to be weak and the matter should be brought to the notice of the company. Due to the prevailing COVID-19 situation it took some time to locate Apollo tyres office. When the complainant approached them in their 815, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh office, they refused to entertain his complaint directly and he lodged a complaint at their Tollfree number 18002127070 on 06.08.2020. On lodging his complaint, he received a phone call and the complainant sends the photographs of the damaged tyre on their whatsapp number highlighting the bulged area. After inspection of the photographs, the caller again called and asked him to produce the tyre to the OP No.1. On 10.08.2020, the OP No.1 carried out the inspection and declared that they tyre had bulged because the tyre had run after the tyre go punctured. It is also stated that inspection report of the official of the company clearly shows that the tread of the tyre had only worn 46.8% at the time of inspection and more than 50% of the tyre was still intact. After being unsatisfied by the outcome of his complaint, he lodged an appeal against the report of the inspecting official on 11.08.2020 and 26.8.2020 which were registered vide reference numbers TC159714-5231568 and TC1598441988738 respectively. There was no response from the OP except a call from Sh.Chaman Lal who had done the previous inspection. He advised the complainant to again bring the tyre to his office and said that he shall do re-inspection and submit the same report again. Due to the act and conduct of the Ops, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony, harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared through their representative and filed the written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as the present complaint is not maintainable being false and baseless; no cause of action and suppressed the true facts. On merits it is stated that Ops are not aware of the transactions happened between complainant and service centre concerned whereas the Ops are nowhere related to the said person of service centre who are not qualified in tyre technology and does not affirm to any of its opinion. It is also stated that on technical inspection it is clearly mentioned in “Technical Inspection Report” i.e. T.I.R. the cause of damage in the tyre is due to “Deflation Damage” which causes due to Prolonged use in under inflated condition, Excessive Load, Rim/valve stem leakage, Running after gradual air loss due to puncture/improper repair which is a service abuse not due to any manufacturing defects. It is pertinent to mention that “Technical Inspection Report” i.e. T.I.R. is based on the inspection reports submitted by experts deployed by Ops who inspect the tyres in accordance of the guidelines issued in (ITTAC’s Tyre Condition Analysis Guide) which is followed by almost all major tyre manufacturing companies and the inspection is based on those guidelines only. Hence, it is unjust to blame the Ops for the damage in tyre whereas it is complainant’s fault which resulted into the damage. Even alleged tyre was re-inspected and same result came out. The official who inspected the tyres have undergone a specialized training to inspect the tyres. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and requested for dismissal of the complaint with special cost.
3. The complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the Authorised representatives of Ops No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit Annexure R-A along with documents Annexure R-1 & R-2 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant as well as Authorised representative of OPs No.1 & 2 and have gone through the entire record available including the written arguments filed by the complainant and Authorised representative of the Ops No.1 & 2, minutely and carefully.
5. Admittedly, the defect of bulging in the tyre of car no.CH01BJ2400 occurred during the guarantee/warranty period (Annexure R-1). The bulging of tyre as per the complainant has occurred on account of manufacturing defect whereas the OP has denied it. Upon lodging of complaint, the tyre was got inspected by the Ops. The technical inspection report is available on record as Annexure R-1, according to which, the probable reasons of the bulging of tyre is as under:-
“Probable reasons: Prolonged use in under inflated condition, Excessive load Rim/Valve stem leakage, Running after gradual air loss due to puncture/ improper repair”.
6. The OPs have denied its liability in the present matter stating that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre and bulging of tyre has occurred due to the reasons which are/were attributable to the complainant.
7. The complainant feeling not satisfied with the aforementioned report, requested the OPs for re-inspection of the tyre in question through a team of experts.
8. The contentions of the OPs denying any manufacturing defect in the tyre on the basis of aforementioned technical inspection report (Annexure R-1) is not tenable as the said technical report suffers from several glaring infirmities. Upon perusal of the said inspection report, it is found that the same do not bear the name, qualification and experience of the technical expert, who examined the tyre in question whereas Sh.Chaman Lal has alleged vide his affidavit (Annexure R-A) that tyre was inspected by him. Moreover, in view of dis-satisfaction of the complainant with the aforementioned technical inspection report, re-inspection of the tyre through a team of experts having wide experience and higher qualification in tyre technology was imperative upon the OPs but the Ops preferred not to send the tyre to any team of experts so as to negate the assertions of the complainant with regard to the manufacturing defect in the tyre and therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.1 & 2 while rendering service to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.
9. Now, coming to the relief it may be mentioned here that the complainant has claimed the refund of 52% of the total value of the new tyre or in the alternative has prayed that a new tyre of the same size and mark be provided to him by charging of 48% of the current price. The claim of the complainant is based on the aforementioned technical inspection report(Annexure R-1) wherein the depreciation of the tyre(tread wear %) has been shown as 46.84%. The claim of the complainant is not tenable as he himself has disapproved the said technical inspection report. Admittedly, the tyre in question is 3 years 10 months years old and has run a distance of about 72000kms. In view of these facts, in our considered opinion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses would be just, fair and reasonable.
10. In view of the discussion made above, the present complaint is partly allowed directing the OPs to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the awarded amount shall carry an interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till its realization. The complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced on:24.08.2021
(Dr.Sushma Garg) (Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini) (Satpal)
Member Member President
Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.
Satpal
President
