CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member.
CC.No.275/08 Tuesday, the day of 31st, December, 2009.
Petitioner. K.J.Thomas Kuzhithottu Meenachil Pala. (Adv.George Boban) Vs. Opposite parties. 1. Popular Hyundai Popular Motor World Private Limited, PMC/III/162, Century Veetee Arcade Near Kottaramattom Private Bus Stand Vellapadu, Pala-686 575. (To be rep. By its M.D.). `(Adv.Siby Chenappady) 2. Bridgestone India Private Limited, BSID 34/1241-C, Beena, Anjumana, Road Edappally, Cochin-682 024. (To be rep. By its M.D.) (Adv.Geby Cheriyan)
O R D E R
Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas, Member.
The crux of the complaint is as follows. -2- Complianant purchased a new Hyundai car named as Verna CDD1 Engine numbered as 04FA 64973557 and tyre make of Bridgestone on 17-10-2006. On 8-7-07 while the complainant was returning home to Palai from Kottayam in his Hyundai verna KL-35/2343 and when it reached near Gndhinagar junction the tyre of the car punctured. The complainant with the assistance of a staff in petrol bunk, which was present near the place where the car was stopped, replaced the punctured tyre with the stepny tyre and continued their journey. The very next day the punctured tyre was taken to the air filling station and they informed the petitioner that the side wall of the tyre is in a damaged condition. As the car was new and having warantee cover the damaged tyre was taken to popular Hyundai service Centre at palai for replacement. The Branch Supervisor examined the tyre and promised to replace the tyre. According to him the warantee for tyre is given by Bridgestore company and the said company has to replace the tyre. The tyre was sent to the Bridgestone company at Cochin by the dealers of popular hyundai at palai. After examining the tyre they gave a report that the tyre has been punctured by penetration of some external sharp object and there is no manufacturing defect. The petitioner alleged that as the Bridgestone company has offered full warantee for the tyre and the damage was caused during the warranty period and therefore he is entitled to get the tyre replaced or the return of money with 6% interest. The petitioner purchased a new tyre by paying Rs.2,700/-. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties and -3- filed this petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,700/- and cost of litigation. The opposite parties 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed version seperately. The version of first opposite party came with the following main contentions. The complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts.
(ii)Complainant is not a consumer under S. 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act. (iii)The first opposite party is not aware of the alleged incident on 8-7-07 and the allegation that the branch supervisor has made promise to replace the tyre is false. (iv)On inspection it was revealed that the tyre was damaged due to the rash and neglient driving or the wilful external act. (v) Being a customer friendly establishment, the first opposite party send the tyre to the Bridgstore company and it was found that the tyre was damaged and punctured by penetration of some external sharp object and there was no manufacturing defect. Hence they refused to replace. (vi)In the Hyundai warranty policy it is clearly stated that the first opposite party is not liable for any damage or failure resulting from any negligence, misuse, abuse, accident etc. In the case of tyre its manufacturer is liable to compensate.
Hence the first opposite party prayed to dismiss the petition with compensatory costs to them. -4- The second opposite party's version came with the following main points. (I) In the instant case replacement of the tyre was not done since the damage caused to the tyre is not manufacturing defect. The second opposite party is responsible only for the manufacturing defects of the tyre. It offers replacement for tyres having manufacturing defect, that after getting the payment of the consumer wear of the tyre. (ii)The said tyre had side wall cut penetration which was caused due to hit from some external sharp object. Hence the claim was rejected and the tyre was returned to the first opposite party. (iii)There is no offer of full warranty for the tyre at any time for any damage caused to the tyre during the warranty period or the amount of the tyre with 6% interest as alleged in the petition. (iv)If the petitioner is insisting that the damages are to a manufacturing defect, it is for the petitioner to get it proved by sending the tyre to the govt. approved centre like Rubber Board for expert opinion. (v) The second opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as compensation to the petitioner. Hence they prayed to dismiss the petition with compensatory cost to them. Points for consideration are: -5- (i)Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
(ii)Reliefs and costs. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and exhibits A1 to A3 and B1 to B2. Point No.1. The claim application form is produced by both the petitioner and opposite parties and they are marked as exhibit A2 a nd exhibit B2 respectively. In exhibits A2 and B2, the second opposite party expressed their inability to replace the tyre citing reason that the damage of the tyre was caused due to side wall cut penetration by external sharp object and there was no manufacturing defect. Whereas the counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no possibility of hit from some external sharp object in a road like M.C.Road. The second opposite party rejected the claim by giving a single line statement as the reason for the damage. But nothing is placed on evidence to prove that the alleged damage occurred due to any external sharp object. The counsel for second opposite party argued that the petitioner would have got an expert opinion from any govt. approved centres to prove the manufacturing defect. Undisputedly the alleged damage of the tyre occurred within the warranty period. And naturally because of the aforesaid reason the complainant informed the said damage to the opposite parties and it was sent to the second opposite party for examination. But nothing is mentioned in -6- their claim repudiation about the nature of examination conducted by them and on what basis they came to the conclusion that ''the damage occurred due to penetration by external sharp object and that there is no manufacturing defect. So in our opinion the examination conducted by the second opposite party is not proper and realiable. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, we feel that as the damage was caused due to side wall cut, the contention of the second opposite party regarding penetration by external sharp object is not probable. As the damage occurred within warranty the second opposite party had the bounden duty to examine the damaged tyre properly and to prepare a reliable report about the nature of damage and its reason instead of giving a single line statement. The act of second opposite party in conducting an improper examination of tyre and repudiating a consumer's claim on the basis of a reason which is not supported by any evidence is a clear case of deficiency in service. The second opposite party's counsel further argued that the warranty cover is only for tyres having manufacturing defects and in that case also the party has to make payment of consumer wear of the tyre. But no scrap of paper is placed on record to prove the aforesaid contention. Point No.2. The petitioner submitted that he has sustained a loss of Rs.2700/- for purchasing a new tyre. The receipt of newly purchased tyre is produced and marked as exhibit A3. In our opinion the second opposite party is liable to compensate the aforesaid loss. -7- In the result the petition is allowed. The petition is ordered as follows. The second opposite party will pay Rs.2700/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim till realisation. The second opposite party will also pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the petitioner. As interest is allowed no compensation ordered. Before receiving the compensation and cost the petitioner will deposit the damaged tyre to the second opposite party. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of its copy. This petition is disposed of with the above mentioned directions.
Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sd/- Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath. P. President Sd/- Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member. Sd/-
APPENDIX Documents of the petitioner. Ext.A1 The letter issued by I opposite party to the petitioner. Ext.A2 The claim application form. Ext.A3 Cash bill for Rs.2700/- dted 7.9.07. Documents of the second opposite party. Ext.B1 The true copy of the authorisation. Ext.B2 The advice letter. By Orders,
Senior Superintendent. Kgr/5 copies.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
