Date of Filing: 08/09/2011

        Date of Order:12/10/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  12^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1667 OF 2011

M/s. ITTINA HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,

18/2 A, Ambalipura, Sarjapur Road,

Bellandur Gage, Bangalore-560 102.

Rep. by its Director, Dr. Prabhu Dev P.

(Rep. by Advocate Smt.G. Rajeshwari)                                  ….  Complainant.

V/s

1. M.R.F. Limited,

Sy. No.14, 19^th K.M. Tumkur, Makali Post,

BANGALORE-560 123.

Rep. by Mr. Vivek S Manohar.

2. Ravindu Motors Private Limited,

Vaswana Victoria, 30, (old No.5) Victoria

Road, Corporation ward No.76,

BANGALORE-560 025.

Rep. by Mr. Farooq.

3. Toyoto Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

No.24, 10^th Floor, Canberra Block,

Vittala Malya Road, Bangalore-560 001.

Rep. by Ms. Rukmani Kirloskar.                                         …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.25,000/-, are necessary:-

The complainant has purchased Toyota Etios G Car from the opposite party No.2 on 08.07.2011.  The Director of the complainant with their family members had travelled from Bangalore to Chitradurga on 17.07.2011 in the said car and reached Chitradurga at 10.30 AM.  Started the return journey from Chitradurga at 2.00 PM and the Director D. Prabhu Dev P was on the wheels.  Before Tumkur town the speed of the car was about 80 kilometers.  At that time the rear side right tire fitted to the wheel was bursted and the complainant was managed to stop the car without damage to anything.  The complainant sent e-mail to Mr. Farooq of the second opposite party on 18.07.2011 informing about the burst and to get some answer from the manufacturer of tyre i.e., first opposite party.  The opposite party No.2 has not taken any steps to replace the tyre.  The complainant informed the first opposite party in the matter One Mr. Vivek S. Manohar of the first opposite party inspected the tyre on 19.07.2011 and submitted the report stating that the burst was due to external damage/side wall cut.  There is manufacturing defect with the tyre, there was no obstacles in the road.  A notice was issued to the opposite parties on 27.07.2011 as there was no compliance this complaint is filed.

2.       In this case regarding admission there are some matters required to be heard.  The case was posted to 19.09.2011, 23.09.2011, 28.11.2011, 29.11.2011 and 04.10.2011 even adjourning on payment of the costs to be deposited to the Consumer Welfare Fund neither the complainant nor the counsel for the complainant were present.  Hence perused the records.

3.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is any prima facie case of deficiency in service/manufacturing defect to issue process?

2. What Order?

4.       Our findings are:-

Point (A)        :           In the Negative

Point (B)        :           As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A to C:-

5.       The complaint is as bald as it could be.  It is a self serving statement without any material.  The complainant never stated for what value he has purchased the car; what is the registration number; which are the tyres that were fitted; who had purchased the tyres, from whom; whether there was any guaranty or warranty to the car or to the tyres etc.,.  The only contention is the tyre was bursted that’s all. 

6.       It is seen from the records that the complainant is a private limited company.  A private limited company is to be represented only by the Managing Director or by the Company Secretary or by any other person regarding whom resolution is made by the company in this regard.  Here the complaint is filed by Dr. Prabhu Dev P as a director whether he has been authorized by the company? is not at all stated.

7.       It is seen from the tax invoice dated: 08.07.2011 the company had placed an order for the car in question on 28.06.2011 and it was purchased by the company for Rs.6,71,416/-.  The tax invoice does not say whether any amount is paid under the tax invoice.  Whether the car was received by the complainant, etc.,.  According to the tax invoice ex-showroom price is Rs.5,54,927.54 paise that is the value of the car and the VAT that is the road tax, what is the insurance? what is the registration number? Or whether it is registered is not at all stated.

8.       In any event it is further seen that the car was delivered to the complainant on 10.07.2011 to the company, a brand new car was taken delivery on 10.07.2011 from the show-room.  According to the complainant the director took the car to Chitradurga on 17.07.2011 in the morning reached Chitradurga at 10.30 left Chitradurga at 2.00 pm and near Tumkur the vehicle was at a speed of 80 kilometers per hour at that time one of the tyre bursted.  Any new car cannot be driven at a speed of 80 kilometers per hour.  It should be less then 60 kilometers till First service is made at least.  Though the vehicle was taken on 10.07.2011 the Director drove the vehicle for about 300 kilometers within about 3 hours, this itself clearly goes to show that the driver of the vehicle was rash and negligent.  However at 2.00 pm he started but what time he reached Tumkur is not at all stated. 

9.       Any way on 18.07.2011 at 6.45 pm the director of the complainant sent an e-mail to the second opposite party which reads thus:-

“We had purchased 2 Toyota Etios G model in this month and had taken delivery of both the cars on 10^th July 2011.  One of the cars was being driven by me on a highway NH4, and suddenly the tyre burst and the car swerved out of control, but was some how managed to be stopped.  Now this kind of incident casts a doubt on the quality and assurance of the company.  First of all does a new Tyre which we believe to be a tubeless radial burst all of a sudden??”

To this the authorities of the opposite party No.1, the manufacturer visited the complainant verified the tyres and gave the report on 19.07.2011.  The report reads thus:-

That means the experts of the opposite party No.1, the experts in the tyre have found that the tyres got damaged because it had come in contact with sharp/hard object.  When the vehicle was in motion and because of that the side wall was cut being hit to a sharp edge.  That means it is the self making of the director of the complainant which caused damages to the Tire.  There is no manufacturing defect in the engine or in the car as such there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties in this regard.  But the say of the complainant in the complaint that the director was driving the vehicle and the road was good that’s all.  Then how a sharp/hard object has caused damage to the tyre? There is no answer.  There is no per contra material on the part of the complainant to say the cause is the manufacturing defect in the tyre.  There is no such expert opinion.  The director of the complainant is only a doctor and not an engineer.  Then how can he say that the tyre was damaged because of manufacturing defect.  In any event the complainant never said that he has paid any money to the first opposite party and got his tyres to his vehicle there is no jural relationship between the complainant and the first opposite party.  How the third opposite party is responsible for this?  The third opposite party is the manufacturer of the TOYOTA cars.  There is no manufacturing defect in the car.  The third opposite party is not manufacturer of the tyres how the third opposite party is responsible for this?  There is no answer.

10.     In any event merely second opposite party has sold the vehicle how can the second opposite party is responsible for this action.  There is no manufacturing defect or there is no deficiency in service.  As the complainant has got the tyre damaged, because of his own wrong driving, how can the second opposite party is responsible?  Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Dismissed.  No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 12^th Day of October 2011)

MEMBER                                       MEMBER                            PRESIDENT