D.O.F:21/11/2018
D.O.O:15/07/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.186/2018
Dated this, the 15th day of July 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
C.Madhavan.
S/o.C.Pokkan,
Nheruvil (House)
Kuttikol, Kuttikol Post : Complainant
Kasaragod District, 671541
(Adv:T.C.Narayanan)
And
- Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd,
Head Office,
1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj.
(Adv: K.A Nazir & Anto Thomas)
- KVR Cars,
Anamgoor, Vidyanagar. P.O
Kasaragod
(Adv: Shrikanta Shetty)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased an MARUTHI SWIFT full option DZIRE diesel ZDI car from the Opposite Party. No.2 on 21.06.2016 , for a total amount of Rs.8,29,457/-,which was registered with No.KL14 S 9696. The Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer of the car. The 4 tires of the car were Good Year with batch No.3015 and a spare Tire which was MRF Batch No.3113.The Opposite Parties specifically warned in the users manual that never run the tire beyond TWI and the tire was recommended to be replaced when the remaining tread has worn to this point.
When the remaining tread has worn to this point the complainant tried to replace the same with the spare tire that the Opposite Parties have supplied. But the complainant was surprised to note that the spare tire was of a different size. So he requested the Opposite Party No.2 to replace the spare tire with correct size but the Opposite Party No.2 did not do that.
The Opposite Parties offered that the vehicle is equipped with tires which are all same type and size. Also it is stated that this is important to ensure proper steering and handling of the vehicle. In spite of several requests by the complainant , the Opposite Parties did not come forward to replace the spare tire with correct size.
The act of the Opposite Parties amounts to unfair trade practice and service deficiency, due to which the complainant suffered great mental agony and monetary loss .The complainant sent registered notice to the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties did not complied with the demands. Hence this complaint is filed seeking compensation of Rs.25,000/-and costs
The Opposite Parties entered appearance through their respective counsel who filed written Version.
As per the version of the Opposite Party No1, the allegations in the complaint are wholly misconceived ,groundless and unsustainable in law and liable to be dismissed.
The Opposite Parties No.1 states that the temporary spare tyre and wheel are only intended for temporary emergency use .The inflation pressure of the temporary tyre should be checked at least once in a month monthly. Continuous use of this spare tyre can result in tyre failure and loss of control.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainant is liable to be dismissed
As per the version of the Opposite Party No2, the complaint is false frivolous and not maintainable in law. The MARUTHI SWIFT full option DZIRE diesel ZDI car is supplied with 4 Alloy wheels of the same size and tyres and an emergency wheel. The emergency wheel supplied is somewhat a little bit smaller in size, because such tyre is called emergency tyre and only to be used to get to the next garage or tyre shop to fix the puncture and to put the original tyre again in it place. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainant is liable to be dismissed
The Complainant filed the proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced documents which are marked as Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 3. The Ext - A1 is the copy of the Regd. legal notice dated 24-10-2018. Ext - A 2 is the reply notice dated 08-11-2018 , Ext.A3 is the copy of relevant pages (duly verified with the original)of the User Manual. The complainant was Cross -examined as PW - 1.
From the side of the Opposite Parties ,two witnesses were examined as DW1 and 2 and marked documents Ext.B1 to B5. The DW1 is a customer care Manager of the Opposite Party No.2 ,The DW2 is the Manager of the OP No.1. Ext. B1 is the copy of the Reply notice Dated 08-11-2018, Ext. B2 and3 are the acknowledgement cards. Ext.B4 is the copy of the Warranty details, The Ext B5 is the relevant pages of the User’s Manual.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following
Issues are framed for consideration.
1 . Whether there is any unfair trade practice or service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite parties ?
2 . If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a MARUTHI SWIFT full option DZIRE diesel ZDI car from the Opposite Party. No.2 on 21.06.2016 , for a total amount of Rs.8,29,457/-,which was registered with No.KL14 S 9696. The Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer of the car. The 4 tires of the car were Good Year with batch No.3015 and a spare Tire which was MRF Batch No.3113.The OPs specifically warned in the users manual that never run the tire beyond TWI and the tire was recommended to be replaced the remaining tread has worn to this point.
When the remaining tread has worn to this point the complainant tried to replace the same with the spare tire that the Opposite Parties have supplied . But the complainant was surprised to note that the spare tire was of a different size. So he requested the Opposite Party No.2 to replace the spare wheel and tire with correct size but the Opposite Party No.2 did not do that. The Opposite Parties offered that the vehicle is equipped with tires which are all same type and size. Also it is stated that this is important to ensure proper steering and handling of the vehicle. In spite of several requests by the complainant, the Opposite Parties did not come forward to replace the spare tire with correct size.
The act of the Opposite Parties amounts to unfair trade practice and service deficiency, due to which the complainant suffered great mental agony and monetary loss.
As per the version of the Opposite Party No1, the allegations in the complaint are wholly misconceived ,groundless and unsustainable in law and liable to be dismissed..
The Opposite Party No.1 states that the temporary spare tyre and wheel are only intended for temporary emergency use .The inflation pressure of the temporary tyre should be checked at least once in a month. Continuous use of this spare tyre can result in tyre failure and loss of control. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainant is liable to be dismissed
As per the version of the Opposite Party No.2, the complaint is false frivolous and not maintainable in law. The MARUTHI SWIFT full option DZIRE diesel ZDI car is supplied with 4 Alloy wheels of the same size and tyres and an emergency wheel. The emergence wheel supplied is somewhat a little bit smaller in size, because such tyre is called emergency tyre and only to be used to get to the next garage or tyre shop to fix the puncture and to put the original tyre again in its place. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainant is liable to be dismissed.
Here the main case of the complainant is that the Opposite Parties offered that the vehicle is equipped with tires which are all same type and size . Also it is stated that this is important to ensure proper steering and handling of the vehicle.
The Spare Tyre supplied by Opposite Parties is of a different type and also a little smaller in size .The Opposite Parties also admit that aspect. Their argument is that the emergency tyre with wheel supplied is somewhat a little bit smaller in size, because such tyre is called emergency tyre and only to be used to get to the next garage or tyre shop to fix the puncture and to put the original tyre again in its place. The spare tyre with wheel is intended for temporary emergency use. Also it is argued the continuous use of this spare tyre can result in tyre failure and loss of control There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
The main contention raised by the complainant is that the spare tyre and wheel should be same as that of other four wheels .
The counsel for the complainant invited the attention of this commission to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 138(4) (a) which reads as,
“ in the case of a motor vehicle, other than a motor cycles ,a set of spare bulbs for head lamp and fuses and a spare wheel ready for use , which means a spare wheel is not a gift of the manufacturer” So it is a mandatory requirement. It is not a an accessory or a cosmetic add on. So the Rule make it clear that the spare wheel is one which be given along with the vehicle. The Opposite Parties are not entitled to minimize the size of the spare wheel for their on whims and fancies.
There is nothing before this commission as to know what made the Opposite Parties to supply such a spare wheel of different size and material. Here the spare wheel supplied is somewhat a little bit smaller in size .The reason said is that , “because such tyre is called emergency tyre and only to be used to get to the next garage or tyre shop to fix the puncture and to put the original tyre again in its place.”.
This contention is very strange and cannot be accepted .Then what can be done , if the tyres got punctured during night travel at remote areas, where there is no workshop?
When a non Alloy wheel is of a different material is fixed along with 3 Alloy wheels in a running car, it certainly affect the equilibrium of the car and one cannot predict what will be the affects in hostile road conditions.
As admitted by the witness of the Opposite Party No.1 the DW2, who is a qualified Mechanical Engineer, during cross-examination, that the driving of the car with wheels of different size will affect the equilibrium of car. It also result in behavioural changes of car. It is needless to say that ultimately it may end in accidents, during driving.
It is admitted by the witness of the Opposite Party No.1, during cross examination, that the total price of the car is inclusive of the price of 5 wheels. So it is clear that there is no justifiable reason for Opposite Parties in supplying a spare wheel of smaller in size.
Considering the nature and circumstance of the case this commission is of the view that the Opposite Parties, who have bounden duty to supply a spare wheel of same size and material, were engaging in unfair trade practice and there is gross negligence and service deficiency on their part.
The complainant states that he suffered great mental agony and hardships due to the above acts of the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate for that. The complainant estimates his loss and damage to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.But there is no data for that .This commission is of the view that Rs. 20,000/- would be a reasonable amount of compensation.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties NO.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs to the complainant .
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of receipt of the copy of this judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- The copy of the Regd. Leagal notice Dt: 24/10/2018
A2- The reply notice Dt: 08/11/2018
A3- The copy of relevant pages
B1- The copy of reply notice Dt: 08/11/2018
B2& B3 – acknowledgment cards
B4- warranty details
B5- Relevant pages of the User’s manual
Witness Examined
Pw1- C.Madhavan
Dw1-Shamnas
Dw2- Alexander.P.John
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
