BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  :  MEMBER

C.C. No. 107/2013 Filed on 13.03.2013

ORDER DATED: 28.09.2017

Complainant:

Usha Gopinath, ‘Gopikrishna’, Market Road, Sreekariyam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 017.

                               (By Adv. Aniyoor T. Ajith Kumar)                                       

Opposite parties:

1. M.R.F Ltd., Registered Office, 124, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.

2. The Authorized Officer, M.R.F Ltd., T.C No. 55/807-808-809, Bharadwaj Vadika, Sankar Nagar Road, Neeramankara, Kaimanam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 040.

(By Adv. Nair Ajay Krishnan for 1^st & 2^nd O.P)

3. M/s Anupama Tyres, Sreekariyam Junction, Sreekariyam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 017.

This case having been heard on 16.08.2017, the Forum on 28.09.2017 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. P. SUDHIR:  PRESIDENT

Complainant’s case is that complainant purchased two M.R.F Tyres for her Maruti car from 3^rd opposite party on 19.06.2012 vide invoice No. 3324 for an amount of Rs. 4800/-.  After 6 months on 22.01.2013 morning while the complainant was washing the car, she noticed bulging on the side of tyre No. 63867081812.  On the same day she contacted the 3^rd opposite party who attended the complaint on the same day vide claim forwarding docket No. 21014 and sent the defective tyre to wholesale dealer, the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party did not admit that bulging was due to manufacturing defect though the tyre was sent to them twice by 3^rd opposite party.  According to them tyre was damaged as a result of side wall concussion due to sudden impact with some heavy object.  When the tyre was found bulging it was immediately removed and complaint lodged.  Except bulging due to normal pressure and weight, there was no external sign of damage to the tyre.  Even for a layman it was possible to conclude that such condition could be due to manufacturing defects only.  When tyre was taken from the wheel drum it looked normal.  However when this complainant received the tyre back from 2^nd opposite party with his inspection report, there was a sear inside tyre.  There was no sign of bruise on the outer wall, which ought to have happened in the event of a heavy object hitching the tyres.  The tyre has completed only about 2000 kms.  Reluctance on the part of the opposite parties to replace the tyre with a new one amount to deficiency of service.  Hence complainant approached this Forum for replacement of new tyre, compensation and cost. 

Notice sent to opposite parties.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 appeared and filed version.  3^rd opposite party not turned up and 3^rd opposite party set exparte.  From the version of opposite parties 1 & 2 contention taken is that a tyre of 145/70R12 ZVTS (TT) bearing Serial No. 63667081812 was received for inspection from the 3^rd opposite party under complaint docket/Notification No. 21014 dated 22.01.2013 and was thoroughly examined on 23.01.2013 by the Technical service personnel Mr. Kevin John.  His examination revealed that the tyre is free from any manufacturing defect.  He observed that the said tyre had suffered external damage/scoring due to sudden impact by some sharp object on the sidewall while the vehicle was in motion.  The tyre being a rubber product, it cannot be made full proof against the impact with sharp external object.  The technical service personnel has come to the above conclusion only after subjecting the said tyre to a thorough and detailed examination.  After inspection, the inspection report dated 24.01.2013 along with the tyre was returned to the 3^rd opposite party ide delivery memo on 31.01.2013.  The tyre mentioned in the complaint is of a true and merchantable quality absolutely free from any manufacturing defect.  The tyre mentioned in the complaint was damaged due to the reason stated above.  The 1^st opposite party’s liability as a manufacturer arises only if the tyre is having manufacturing defect.  The tyre manufactured by the 1^st opposite party adheres to strict standard of quality and is free from any manufacturing defect.  Tyre being a rubber product can be damaged for any reason other than manufacturing defect.  The life/performance of a tyre depends on many factors like air pressure, driving habits, road conditions, load carried by the vehicle, mechanical condition and/or irregularities of the vehicle, proper maintenance of the tyres, speed, nature of the terrain, i.e; level ground, hilly and/or winding roads, the season of the year when the tyre was used, position of the tyre on the vehicle, inflation/pressure and the external object with which the tyre may come in contact while in motion etc.   

Issues:

1. Whether the complainant proved manufacturing defect of the tyre?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
3. What is the order as to compensation and costs?

Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and examined as PW1.  Ext. P1 to P4 marked.  PW1 cross examined by opposite parties 1 & 2.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed chief examination affidavit and examined as DW1.  Exts. D1 to D3 marked.  DW1 cross examined by complainant.

Issue (i):- Complainant is alleging manufacturing defects.  She is not ready to send the tyre to lab for analysis as per Sec. 13(1)(c)(d).  As per the deposition of PW1 deposed in cross that “താങ്കള്‍ tyre and connected rubber products-ന്‍റെ expert ആണോ (Q) അല്ല (A) ഈ വിഷയത്തെ സംബന്ധിച്ച് എനിക്ക് degree ഇല്ല”.  Since the complainant is not ready to send the tyre for analysis and there is nothing to show that there is manufacturing defect this Forum has no other go but to dismiss the complaint.  Since the first issue is found against the complainant, there is no room for discussion of other issues. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed without cost.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 28^th day of September 2017.     

         Sd/-

P.SUDHIR                             : PRESIDENT

         Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 107/2013

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Usha Gopinath

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Retail invoice dated 19.06.2012

P2     - Claim forwarding docket dated 22.01.2013

P3     - Claim forwarding docket dated 04.02.2013

P4     - Inspection Report-Rejection Advice dated 11.02.2013 

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

          DW1 - Sijo Jose

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

D1     - Copy of claim forwarding docket dated 22.01.2013

D2     - Copy of inspection report-rejection advice

D3     - Copy of letter sent by 2^nd O.P to 3^rd O.P dated 29.01.2013

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb