By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

            Complainant is the driver of Kl-11/B/9732 No. Tempo van.  The complainant had purchased a tyre for an amount of Rs.3975/- from the second opposite party.  Second opposite party had informed the complainant that the tyre will last upto usage of 12000 K.Ms. Second opposite party had also told the complainant that if any damage occurs they will replace a new tyre at a price of half amount.  But the tyre became damaged within 10 months.  The complainant could use the tyre only upto 5000 K.Ms.  By the time the middle portion of the tyre became worn out and treads were visible.  In this circumstance the complainant could not use the tyre.  The complainant approached the second opposite party stating all these facts but they did not respond.  The complainant had to buy another tyre for the vehicle. Complainant alleges that the tyre purchased from second opposite party was of low quality.  Hence the complainant filed the petition seeking relief.

            Opposite party-1 filed their version denying the allegations in the complaint. First opposite party denies the allegation that the defect in tyre is due to poor quality.  First opposite party’s Technical Service Engineer had visited the complainant’s premises to inspect the tyre.  On examination the TSE found defect in the tyre.  Tyre became defective due to under inflated tyre running over broken roads.  First opposite party states that defects in the tyre is not manufacturing defect but the defects caused by rough use.  Hence first opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.

            The second opposite party also filed a version denying the averments in the petition.  Opposite party denies the assurance of the performance of the tyre upto 12000 K.Ms and replacement in case of defect on payment of half price.  Second opposite party is only a dealer of first opposite party.  The tyre is sold under the manufacturer’s warranty. Second opposite party also denies the contention of the complainant that he use the tyre only for 5000 K.Ms. When the complainant produced the tyre before second opposite party, they prepared complaint form and directed the petitioner to produce before first opposite party.  The first opposite party alone is liable for replacement of the tyre or compensate the loss suffered if any.  Second opposite party is a unnecessary party and he is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed in the petition.  Second opposite party prays to dismiss the petition.

            The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 was marked on complainant’s side.  Expert report marked as X1.  RW1 was examined and Ext.B1 was marked on opposite party’s side.

            The case of the complainant is that he purchased a tyre on 18-4-05 from the second opposite party.  Opposite party-2 had assured that he could use the tyre upto 12000 K.Ms and if any damage occurred within warranty period they will replace the tyre for half the amount   The opposite parties have denied this contention of the complainant.  The complaint form dated 13-2-06, which is the triplicate for the dealer shows that the tyre became damaged within 10 months and it was taken to opposite party-2. The dealer directed the complainant to first opposite party and they have also inspected the tyre.  After inspection Technical Service Engineer of opposite party-1 has prepared a report stating that there is no manufacturing defect.  But the fact is that the Technical Service Engineer had found defect n the tyre and he has attributed the defect on account of under inflated tyre running over broken roads.  The complainant does not agree with the report of the Technical Service Engineer of the first opposite party because he is an employee of first opposite party and has prepared a report at the instance of the first opposite party. The tyre was again sent for a second expert opinion, which was marked as Ext.X1. Ext.X1 states that “ The tyre was found excessively worn out at the middle portion of the tread throughout the circumference.  The excessive wear observed on the tyre could be running of the tyre in the over inflated condition.”  Ext.B1 is an affidavit filed by the Service Engineer of first opposite party after inspection of the tyre, which are states that there were defects seen in the tyre.  Reason was stated as channel cracks on rib.  In the version opposite party has explained this failure arising on account of under inflated tyre running over broken roads.  Ext.X1 also arrived at the conclusion after inspection of the tyre that there was excessive wear observed on the tyre due to running of the tyre in the over inflated condition.  Ext.X1 report is just one line report.  They have not mention how the tyre was inspected what was the quality of the rubber used for the particular tyre.  The report is found to be lacking in details.  In this instance the complainant had produced the tyre before the Forum.  The Forum had taken notice of the tyre and found that the middle portion of the tyre was worn through out and tread was visible outside.  Even though we have an expert opinion before us the Forum found the report lacking in details.  Hence the report is not taken as realible.  On a perusal the tyre was found to be defective and opposite party-2 has admitted that the complainant has brought the tyre before them within 10 months of purchase.  In our opinion the quality of the tyre was poor which caused the defects in the tyre.  For this reason we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the tyre replaced or to get the cost of the tyre refunded.

            In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite parties are directed either to replace the defective tyre or to return back the cost of the tyre Rs.3975/- along with a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open court this the 29th day of May 2009.

                                           Sd/-                                              Sd/-

                                    PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant.

A1.  Photocopy of bill dt. 18-4-05.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

B1.  Affidavit of Mr. Arun.O.

X1.  Expert Report  dt. 20-8-08.

Witness examined for the complainant.

PW1.  Sreenivasan (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party.

RW1.  C.G. Prabakaran Pillai, Manager Commercial, CEAT Ltd.,Cochin.

                                                                        Sd/- President

                                    // True copy //

                                    (Forwarded/By order)

                                                                                    SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT