By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> 1. Complainant alleges that the front two tyres of his new bus KL-10/P 5069 developed defects after 21 days of plying the vehicle. First opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle, second opposite party is the dealer and third opposite party is the manufacturer of the tyres. Complainant is aggrieved that the tyres have manufacturing defects and prays for replacement or refund along with compensation and costs.<br /> 2. First opposite party filed version that the warranty issued covers manufacturing defects of the vehicle only and does not extend to parts such as tyres, tubes, batteries etc. That when complainant reported that the tyres were defective the said information was conveyed to the manufacturer of the tyres who is the third opposite party. The representatives of third opposite party had examined the defective tyres and had opined that the same had become defective due to negligent usage. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party. The dealer from whom complainant has purchased the vehicle has filed version reieterating the contentions of first opposite party. The manufacturer of the tyres who is the third opposite party herein has admitted the supply of tyres through first opposite party. It is contended that there is no privity of contract with third opposite party. That complainant has to seek warranty regarding tyres with third opposite party, but till date complainant has not approached for this. That Third opposite party is ready to look into the matter. That no complaint has been noticed in the same batch of tyres sold to other customers. That complainant has not submitted any complaint before third opposite party and therefore third opposite party did not get an opportunity to look into the matter. If the tyres were produced the technical wing of third opposite party would have inspected and on finding any defect would have sufficiently redressed the grievance. That complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.<br /> 3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A5 marked for complainant. Seperate counter affidavits filed by all opposite parties. Ext.B1 marked for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2. No documents marked for opposite party No.3. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.<br /> 4.. Points for consideration:-<br /> (i) Whether opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice.<br /> (ii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> 5. Point (i):-<br /> Complainant alleges that two new tyres which were fitted on his new bus purchased from second opposite party has manufacturing defects. The vehicle was registered as KL10-P 5069 within the local limits of jurisdiction of this Forum. Third opposite party is the manufacturer and second opposite party is the dealer who has supplied the tyres along with the vehicle. It is the case of complainant that after 21 days of plying the vehicle the front tyres became damaged and the next day itself the bus was produced before the authorized mechanic of second opposite party at Cherupulasseri and a complaint was lodged. They in turn directed to contact the Palakkad office of second opposite party. Two days later all back wheel tyres were also damaged and became revelted. Immediately complainant contacted the Palakkad office of 2nd opposite party and they instructed the complainant to produce the two front tyres at Palakkad office and also demanded for photographs of the defective back wheel tyres. Complainant then produced the defective front tyres as well as photographs of defective back wheel tyres as instructed. Opposite party failed to take any action and so complainant send a letter to second opposite party. Second opposite party neither replied nor did they take any action to redress the defect of tyres. Complainant then send a lawyer notice on 23-11-2004 to 2nd opposite party. Ext.A5 is the letter send by complainant to second opposite party. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:<br /> “I also wish to submit that within 20 days four tyres damaged and immediately despatched the above tyres to Sakthy Automobiles,Palakkad for which an amount of Rs.25,000/- occurred by way of losses. I am entitled to get the above losses from the Company and I have not yet received the said amount so far from the Company.<br /> I took the photographs of the above four tyres and entrusted the same to the Palakkad Manager for which I incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,000/-. This amount also not received from the company so far.”<br /> Ext.A2 is the notice send by complainant through lawyer to second opposite party in which among other grievances the defect of tyres are also stated in paras 8 to 13 of this notice. Second opposite party admits that complainant had reported about defect of tyres. It is affirmed by second opposite party that the defect reported by complainant was conveyed to third opposite party on 14-01-2003. It is also stated that the representative of third opposite party had examined the alleged defective tyres and had opined that the same had become defective due to negligent use and that thereafter the tyres were taken back by the complainant himself. To the contrary third opposite party has filed affidavit stating that no complaint aleging defect was presented before third opposite party. The relevant portion of the affidavit filed by third opposite party is as under:<br /> “5. ..........This is a case were in no complaint is presented before us and hence we did not get an opportunity even to look into the matter. Hence the complainant has no locus standi to file such a complaint against this opposite party. The complainant has included us in the part seriously as a formal party.<br /> 6. If the tyres were produced by th complainant, definitely the technical wing of this opposite party would have inspected the tyres and if they find any defect, it would have been taken care of.”<br /> Ext.B1 is the letter by second opposite party to third opposite party informing the defect of tyres and calling for action from the side of third opposite party. The relevant portion of Ext.B1 is as under:<br /> “Kindly recall the personal discussions our office had with you during your last visit to this branch regarding uneven tyre were complaint of the 9.00 x 20 size fitted to an original equipment to the TATA LP 1510 Bus bearing Reg. No.KL-10 P 6059 of Mr.Mohammed Haneefa, Perintalmanna, Malappuram Dist. As discussed, we are enclosing herewith photos of the complaint tyres with sample pieces for your necessary action. Please note that as suggested by you we have advised the customer to resole the tyres as the vehicle is a stage carriage.<br /> Date of sale of vehicle -- 04-10-2002<br /> Removal of tyres -- 12-12-2002<br /> Total Kms. Run -- 4955 Kms.<br /> Expected tyre mileage -- 25000 Kms.<br /> Comparison -- All fitted tyres show the same <br /> complaint.”<br /> Thus it is crystal clear that the tyres were defective as contended by the complainant. It is also brought out in evidence that complainant informed second opposite party who in turn has informed about the defect to the manufacturer. Even then third opposite party feigns to have no knowledge about the defect of tyres. It is submitted by second opposite party that after examination of the tyres the representative of third opposite party had opined that the defect was due to negligent usage. The contentions of second and third opposite party who are the dealer and manufacturer of the tyres is highly contradictory to each other. We have no hesitation to draw adverse inference from such baseless and inconsistent contentions raised by opposite parties. Though complainant has not taken any steps to send the tyres for inspection and for adducing opinion of expert from the evidence tendered and materials placed before us we are able to conclude that the tyres are defective and are of substandard quality. The tyres became defective within two months of it's purchase. There is no doubt that the tyres had manufacturing defects. The act of third opposite party in not redressing the grievance by either rectifying the defect or replacing the tyres definitely amounts to unfair trade practice. We find that third opposite party who is the manufacturer of tyres has committed unfair trade practice. First and second opposite parties are exonerated from liability. <br /> 6. Point (ii):-<br /> Third opposite party being the manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant for the manufacturing defects. The complainant who had purchased the bus as a means of livelihood by self employment had to undergo such a lot of hardships due to the unfair trade practice. By the growth of brand names and direct advertising by the manufacturer, the consumer looks to the manufacturer for reliability, and quality. The manufacturer owes a general duty to take care that the product which he supplies and reaches the ultimate consumer is of sufficient quality. He also owes a duty to attend to and redress the grievance of the consumer at the earliest. Instead of making the consumer run from pillar to post and exploiting his helplessness the approach on the part of traders and manufacturers should be speedy redressal of a consumer complaint. Complainant has not stated the cost of each tyre. Complainant prays for replacement of the defective tyres or for an amount of Rs.25,000/- as cost of tyres. He also claims for compensation of Rs.30,000/- together with cost of Rs.2,000/-. From the foregoing discussion we hold that third opposite party is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation together with Rs.2,000/- being cost of the proceedings.<br /> 7. In the result we allow the complaint and order third opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant together with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Dated this 24th day of November, 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-<br /> MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5<br /> Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the acknowledgement card from 2nd opposite party<br /> to complainant's counsel.<br /> Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the Lawyer notice dated, 23-11-2004 <br /> by complainant's counsel to 2nd opposite party.<br /> Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the reply notice from 2nd opposite party's counsel<br /> to complainant's counsel.<br /> Ext.A4 : Agreement dated, 30-9-2002 executed between 1st opposite party<br /> and complainant.<br /> Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 20-9-2003 by complainant to<br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1<br /> Ext.B1 : Letter dated, 14-01-2003 by 2nd opposite party to Service Engineer<br /> of 3rd opposite party. <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-<br /> MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />