By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: <br /> <br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that complainant is a retired teacher. On 6.2.06 he had purchased a new Ambassador car. The service to the new car had done in the workshop of Marikkar Motors within the time. Immediately after the second service the two tyres of the car got damaged. The workshop manager had entrusted the damaged tyres to the company and also promised compensation from the Company. But the engineer of the tyre company had examined the tyre and stated that it was not the defect of tyre but it was due to the absence of wheel alignment by the company. So he has incurred loss. Hence this complaint. <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The counter is as follows. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This respondent is only a dealer and the manufacturer of the car M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. is not made a party to the complaint. Since the complaint is against the uneven wearness of tyre, the manufacturer of the tyre M/s Bridge Stone India Ltd. is also <br /> a necessary party. This respondent had offered periodical service to the utmost care and satisfaction of the customer. The wearness of the tyre is not due to any defect of the car, but the defects if any caused to the tyre. Wheel alignment of the vehicle was conducted on every service. At the time when the vehicle was brought for first service, wheel alignment was done. Subsequently when the vehicle was brought for second service, then only the petitioner complained of tyre wearness. Even then wheel alignment was done by this respondent. There is no deficiency in service. Hence dismiss. <br /> <br /> 3. The points for consideration are:<br /> <br /> (1) Is there any defect of non-joinder of necessary parties?<br /> (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the amount claimed?<br /> (3) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents?<br /> (4) Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P4 only. No evidence on the part of respondents.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1: The complaint is only against the Marikkar Company for the loss occurred to the complainant due to the absence of wheel alignment. It is to be done by the Marikkar Company through its authorised workshop. Hence others are not necessary parties and the complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.<br /> <br /> 6. Points-2 to 4: The second service to the vehicle was done on 31.5.06 and after the service the front wheels got damaged. The matter is intimated to the tyre manufacturing company and the Engineer of the company examined and informed that the complaint is only because of the absence of wheel alignment. It is to be done in the workshop of the dealer. According to the petitioner there was no facility for wheel alignment. The vehicle was a new one and only in the stage of second service. So we are of the view that the damage to the wheels is in the absence of wheel alignment. There is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and they have to compensate it. The loss claimed by the complainant is Rs.4000/- and the respondent is not denied. Usually it costs Rs.2000/- for one. Hence he is entitled for that amount. <br /> <br /> 7. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to give Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) as the cost of the tyres; Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs. Comply the order within a month. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 29th day of July 2008.<br />