By Jothikumar, Member.
The complainant had purchased Inn ova(2.5 L.G.(G.4) Version of Toyota Car from the first opposite party. Complainant bought the same car vide invoice No.A20070000393 and took delivery of the vehicle on 18.09.07. The said vehicle was delivered to the complainant with 5 tubeless tyres(4 tyre and one spare) manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The tubeless tyres are not at all suitable to be used in the said car. The tyres of the vehicle are the part of the vehicle supplied by the first respondent. On October 2007 when the car just finished 1500 KM. of total drive, both the front tyres of the car blown up simultaneously. The tyres manufactured by the 2nd opposite party and used by the first opposite party in its car were of inherent manufacturing defect. The act of the opposite parties are alleged to be negligence and deficiency in service by the complainant. The opposite parties rejected the claim. Hence this petition is filed by claiming 5 new tyres with tube along with compensation for this loss and injury sustained by the complainant had to suffer due to the deficiency in service of opposite parties.
Opposite party No.1 filed a version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Opposite party-1 is not the manufacturer of the vehicle. It is Toyota Kirlosker Motors Ltd, Bangalore who manufactures the vehicle. So complainant is bad for non jointer of necessary party. The vehicle and all other fittings delivered to the complainant were subjected to the thorough pre-sale quality test not only from the manufacturing unit at Bangalore but also from the show room. Tyres are covered by separate warranty provided by the tyre manufacturer. The opposite party denies that alleged tyre damaged in ordinary circumstances. It is incorrect to say that alleged tyres had any manufacturing defect. The alleged tyres were inspected by the service Engineer of the tyre manufacturer of the company. He reported that the two tyres had external damage on side walls which is due to penetration of sharp object. It is not correct to say that the complainant had suffered mental agony or loss on account of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Hence the first opposite party prays to dismiss the petition with costs to the opposite party.
Opposite party-2 filed a version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. The alleged tyres had no inherent manufacturing defect. The alleged defects were occasioned as a result of hitting of the tyres against some sharp external object. It is not correct to say that the complainant had suffered mental agony or loss on account of the second opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation with regard to the tyres purchased from the opposite party. Hence the petition is liable to dismiss with compensatory cost.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief sought in the petition? If so what is the relief.
The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext A1,A2 and C1 were marked. No oral evidence on the side of the opposite parties.
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased Toyota Car from the first opposite party. He took delivery of the vehicle from opposite party on 18.09.2007. Within a month both front tyres of the car blown up simultaneously. According to the complainant the tyres are having manufacturing defect. Opposite party No.1 had raised the issue of non jointer of necessary parties. Contention of the opposite party No.1 is that they are only the dealer not the manufacturer. After hearing both parties we are of the opinion that dealer is also liable as they are the representatives of the company from whom the complainant had purchased the vehicle. So the complainant has approached the dealer. Even in Exhibit A2 sent by OP No.1 to the complainant Opposite party No.1 has not taken the contention that they are not liable and it is for the company to take up this complaint. Both opposite parties rejected the claim stating that the tyres had no inherent manufacturing defect. As per the request made by the complainant tyres were sent for the expert opinion. In the report (C1) it is stated that no marking of an external injury was seen near the reputure. Hence this may not be due to any external damage and is possibly an inherent defect. Argument of the opposite parties is that the report can not be accepted. The allegation of the complainant is that the damage was due to inherent defect. Forum has verified the documents and looked into all aspects put forward by both sides along with expert report. On the basis of the C1 report we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for relief. The Tubeless tyres are being successfully used in many vehicles.
In the result petition is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to pay cost of the two tubeless tyres Rs.9700/- along with compensation of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) and cost of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant. Both parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open court this the 18th day of October 2011.
Date of filing:16.06.2008.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Tax invoice issued by the first opposite party in favour of the complainant
dtd.18.09.07.
A2. Letter issued by the first respondent to the complainant dtd 26.10.07.
C1. Commission report.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Manoj.A(Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
