DATE OF FILING : 17.06.2009 BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010 Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.110/2009 Between Complainant : V.A.Hameed, Puthenveettil, Kalayanthani P.O, Velliyamattom, Thodupuzha, Idukki District. (By Adv:K.R.Viswan) And Opposite Parties : 1. M/s.Padavan Tyre Chambers, Vellaringattu Towers, Muvattupuzha Road, Thodupuzha P.O, Idukki District. (By Advs:Tom Mathew & M.M.Lissy) 2. M/s.Appolo Tyres, No.421, A&D, Ward No.1, Edappally, Cochi – 682 004. (By Advs:K.M.sanu & Prince.J.Pananal) O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Complainant purchased four number of lorry tyres, four tubes and 4 flaps manufactured by the 2nd opposite party on 20.05.2008 by paying an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the Ist opposite party shop. At the time of purchase the Ist opposite party assured replacement guarantee for the same upto 25,000 Kms. On believing the words of the Ist opposite party and the good faith of the company, complainant purchased the same. But unfortunately the tyres and the tubes became defective after running 3500 Kilometer. So the complainant approached the Ist opposite party for replacement and as per the direction of the Ist opposite party, the tyres, tubes and the flaps were entrusted to the Ist opposite party. After that the Ist opposite party replied that the tyres were damaged not because of the manufacturing defect but due to the mechanical defect of the lorry. The Ist opposite party so far not replaced the tyres and the complainant constrained to send a lawyer notice on 8.04.2009 demanding replacement of the tyres. But the opposite party never replied the same nor replaced the same. Hence the petition is filed.
2. As per the written version of the Ist opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant purchased tyres from the Ist opposite party but there was no guarantee given for 25,000 kilometers of use by the Ist opposite party because it is manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The Ist opposite party is also not aware of the kilometers used by the complainant. The complainant entrusted only 3 tyres, 3 tubes and 3 flaps with the Ist opposite party and the Ist opposite party who is the dealer of the 2nd opposite party, without any delay forwarded those to the 2nd opposite party. The claim of the complainant was rejected because the defect of the tyres were not because of manufacturing, however on a pro-rata basis the 2nd opposite party offered replacement of one tyre. The 2nd opposite party redelivered two tyres entrusted with the Ist opposite party and the Ist opposite party never denied the delivery of the said tyres to the complainant. They are ready and willing to redeliver the same. It is also admitted that they have received lawyer notice from the complainant. It is also stated that the complainant is not a consumer because he used the lorry for commercial purpose with a driver.
3. As per the written version of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant is not a consumer because the vehicle lorry is running for commercial purpose. The Technical Expert of the company did not find any manufacturing defect in the tyres. No expert commissioner was appointed to investigate about the defect of the tyre. The defective tyres were not produced before the Forum, to find out the cause of defect of the tyre with a technical expert. There is no warranty of 25,000 Kms given to the tyres, as customer friendly policy of the company stands only for manufacturing defects in the products, where answering company replace the defective product on pro-rata basis. The technical Service Engineer of the company examined the tyres and reported. The failure is due to "Run flat, Excessive Heel and Toe Wear & No manufacturing defect respectively in three tyres which due to overload or severe under inflation, continued running after puncture, under inflation in one of duel, sudden air loss in tube & rotation of tyre not properly done on time, improper matching of tyre and rim, faulty supension" due to that reason three tyres got damaged. Replacement of one tyre was offered on pro-rata basis as a goodwill gesture. So the company is not liable to compensate the complainant.
4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R3(series) marked on the side of the opposite parties.
6. The POINT :- The petition is filed for replacing the defective tyres supplied by the Ist opposite party to the complainant. Complainant was examined as PW1. The complainant is a timber merchant and he is having a Tata mini lorry for the purpose of his business. PW1 purchased 4 appolo tyres, 4 tubes and 4 flaps from the Ist opposite party and paid Rs.25,000/- on 20.05.2008. Ext.P1 is the bill for the same. It was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. At the time of purchase, the Ist opposite party assured that there will be a guarantee of 25,000 Kms for the same and no defect caused within that period. Very good quality rubber is used for the manufacture of the tube and if any defect caused within that period the tyres, tubes and flaps will be replaced. Unfortunately after the use of 3500 Kms, the tyres got damaged and burst while running the vehicle. So the complainant approached the Ist opposite party and the Ist opposite party assured the complainant that the tyres will be replaced after inspection. Thereafter the Ist opposite party informed the complainant by a letter dated 23.09.2008 stating that they have carefully examined the article and found that there was no manufacturing defect for the tyres and rejected the claim of the complainant which is marked as Ext.P2(Series). So the complainant constrained to send a lawyer notice dated 8.04.2009. The Technical Service Engineer of the 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and he deposed that the warranty of the tyres are offering by the company. So the company is providing guarantee. The 2nd opposite party never offered any warranty to the disputed tyres for 25,000 Kms. As part of the customer friendly policy, the company is issuing warranty only for manufacturing defect of the materials. The Technical Service Engineer of the company properly inspected the tyres and a report is filed which is marked as Ext.R3(series). As per the inspection it is reported that " Run flat, Excessive Heel and Toe Wear & No manufacturing defect respectively in three tyres which due to overload or severe under inflation, continued running after puncture, under inflation in one of duel, sudden air loss in tube & rotation of tyre not properly done on time, improper matching of tyre and rim, faulty suspension" due to that reason three tyres got damaged. Replacement of one tyre was offered on pro-rata basis as a goodwill gesture. Copy of the rejection letter and inspection reports were marked as Ext.R3(series). The driver of the complainant was examined as PW2. PW2 deposed that he is the driver of KL-38-2579 Tata 709 lorry. The capacity of lorry is of 4 ton of load. 4 tyres of the vehicle were burst in 2 incidents. 2 tyres were burst on one day and the others were burst after 5 days. PW2 never loaded the vehicle with a weight more than 4 ton. Now the tyres used were manufactured by MRF company. The vehicle was used with due care. Air was filled in the tyres properly and never used the vehicle after puncture. It is only because of the manufacturing defect of the tyres caused the damages. PW2 was driving the vehicle of the complainant for the last 5 years. The tyres were given to the Ist opposite party after the defect.
7. As per the Ist opposite party, the complainant entrusted 3 tyres, 3 tubes and 3 flaps to the Ist opposite party after the incident. The 2nd opposite party also admitted that 3 of the tyres were given to the Ist opposite party by the 2nd opposite party for inspection and they were returned after the inspection to the Ist opposite party. The driver of the vehicle also submitted that the tyres were returned to the Ist opposite party for inspection. But there is no evidence produced by the complainant to prove that 4 of the tyres were given to the Ist opposite party for inspection. But the opposite party offered and replaced one tyre as a a goodwill gesture. Ext.R3 report shows that there is no manufacturing defect for the tyres. But as per the complainant and PW2, they were using MRF tyres. They were regularly and properly maintaining, checking the tyres. No carelessness caused on their side. They never loaded the vehicle more than excess the capacity of the vehicle. So there is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 and PW2. It is admitted by the opposite parties that 3 tyres were given to the opposite parties for getting replacement. In the report also the opposite parties never stated the reason for the burst of the tyres. They only stated that probable cause of failure are overload, rotation of tyre not timed, improper matching of tyre and Rim, faulty suspension, as per Ext.R3(c). So we think that the opposite party never proved scientifically that the defect was caused not by the manufacturing defect. Hence the opposite parties should replace the defective tyres with fresh tyres as admitted by the opposite parties that they have received 3 of them. Hence the petition allowed. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to take back the defective tyres 3 in number with flap and tubes and replace 3 guaranteed tyres of the same company with flap and tubes to the complainant or to pay the cost of the same as per Ext.P1 within one month. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2010
Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- I agree SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - V.A.Hameed PW2 - Aneesh K.R. On the side of Opposite Parties : DW1 - G.Ajithkrishnan Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Bill dated 20.05.2008 for Rs.25,000/- Ext.P2(series) - Rejection letter & Award letter issued by the 2nd opposite party to the Ist opposite party Ext.P3 - Copy of lawyer notice dated 8.04.2009 issued by the advocate of the complainant to the opposite parties Ext.P4(series) - AD Cards(2 Nos) Ext.P5 - Driving Licence of PW2 On the side of Opposite Parties : Ext.R1 - Power of Attorney Ext.R2 - Authorisation letter issued by the 2nd opposite party to authorise the Technical Service Engineer to inspect the disputed tyres, tubes and flaps Ext.R3(series) - Inspection Report prepared by DW1 with Rejection letter & Award letter
| | HONORABLE Sheela Jacob, Member | HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Bindu Soman, Member | | 
