BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.286/2018

DATED ON THIS THE 16^th November 2022

Present:      1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT  

                     2) Smt.Lalitha.M.K.,

M.A., B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER  

                        3) Sri Maruthi Vaddar,

                                                B.A., LLB (Special)  - MEMBER

Sri MARUTHI VADDAR,

MEMBER

1.         This complaint has been initiated by the complainant under Section 12 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opposite parties alleging deficiency of service directing the opposite parties to replace the damaged tyre or else to compensate the same to the complainant and to pay damage towards hardship and mental agony and direct the manufacturer of Bridge Stone tyres to inspect the tyres fixed to the vehicle and its wear and tear within the mileage period of 25000 kilometer due to supply of lower quality tyres ordered to replace all the tyres or to refund the tyre amount as valued and to pay the cost of this complaint and other incidental charges a sum of Rs.25,000/- and grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of the justice and equity.     
2. The brief facts of the complaint in a nutshell is as here under:-

It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant purchased a brand new vehicle manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and sold by 2^nd opposite party through temporary registration No.KA-09/NT002153/2017-18 with brand name of Innova Crysta 2.4 Z BS IV, vide invoice No.INV170000337 dated 25.04.2017 through order No.ORD170000384 dated 19.04.2017 for a sum of Rs.20,18,500/- the said vehicle was fully loaded on the show room and got insured thereafter delivered by the 2^nd opposite party.The vehicle being used by the complainant for his personal use and run upto mileage of 5067 kilometers from the date of purchase i.e. 2 months and complainant observed that again there was vobling of rear right side tyre, immediately the complainant informed to the showroom and wheel alignment and rear right side tyre checkup done as per invoice dated 03.07.2017 and 04.07.2017, even then rear right side of the vehicle of the tyre being got damaged while using the vehicle on highway road without any contact/impact on the road. Damage happened in the middle of the road.Immediately the complainant intimated the said damage to the 2^nd opposite party through complaint dated 04.07.2017 and the same was conveyed to the tyre manufacturer by 2^nd opposite party in turn a vague reply was given by 2^nd opposite party.The vehicle being used on the specific day in highway road with normal speed but the tyre got damaged though the complainant not drive in any hard or rough mud road or for race or in any haphazard manner.

It is further alleged that 3^rd opposite party manufacturer of bridge stone tyres, given wide advertisement to the public at large assured and promised the public about the quality of the tyre and its warranty and the branded tyre could be used without any damage upto 50,000 kilometers.In the event of any such damages, the manufacturer is held responsible or will undertaken for replacement of the tyre.But, herein for unfortunate situation of the complainant, the tyres fixed to the vehicle from the showroom itself got damaged within a short span of period that too at the consumed mileage of 5000 kilometers, other tyres fixed to the vehicle from the showroom itself is not given as per warranty or assurance the runnage of 25,000/- kilometers.Hence, the complainant got issued a legal notice for which opposite parties gave untenable reply and hence this complaint has been initiated.

3. After the registration of the complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to the opposite parties and in response to the notices, opposite party Nos.1 to 4 have appeared and filed detailed version and in the version of 1^st opposite party, 1^st opposite party contended that the complaint brought out by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and as such the same is liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs. The 1^st opposite party denied the allegations of para Nos.1 to 7 of the complaint and submitted further that 1^st opposite party is not responsible or liable for any defect in tyres as the same was not manufactured or supplied by this opposite party and the same was got replaced by the complainant according to his wish and the same will not come within the purview of this 1^st opposite party.  Relevant extracts from the owners manual stipulating that tyres are covered under a separate warranty issued by the tyre manufacturer are herewith attached as “Annexure A” for the perusal of this Commission. The alleged manufacturing defect in the complainants’ vehicle rear right tyre has been investigated by the appropriate authority i.e. Bridge Stone India Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of the tyre.  On inspecting the tyre, 3^rd opposite party had intimated the complainant vide its E-claim dated 04.07.2017 that the tyre in question has suffered from a “Tread cut penetration due to impact with external object” and subsequently rejected the request for replacement under warranty.  The said tyre warranty rejection E-claim form is herewith attached as “Annexure B”.  This opposite party has been maliciously made party to this complaint and the same should be dismissed in favour of this opposite party in the interest of justice and equity.
4. 2^nd opposite party also filed its version contending that it has denied all the allegations of the complaint paras and further stated that it is only a dealership outlet and not the manufacturers of Toyota cars or any of its accessories. Hence, no liability at any point can be fastened upon them in any manner.  When the complainant has raised such a grievance, they have taken the matter seriously and forwarded the issue to the manufacturer of the said tyre (3^rd opposite party).  The 3^rd opposite party has opined that the said tyre suffered a “tread cut penetration due to impact with external object”.  The warranty to the said tyre is provided by the manufacturer of the tyre and not the 2^nd opposite party.  There was no need or necessity to make this 2^nd opposite party as a party to the proceeding and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party.
5. 3^rd opposite party has filed its version stating that the 3^rd opposite party has denied all the allegations of the complaint paras and further contended that the complainant has lodged a complaint related to one tyre with OEM dealer M/s Balaji Auto Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., i.e. 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party forwarded the photographs of the tyre to service engineer of the 3^rd opposite party. On 04.07.2017 the service engineer e-inspected the one tyre of size 205/65 R16 of pattern B390 bearing serial No.4WMADAD0517, based on the photographs sent by the 1^st opposite party and has been reported that the tyre was having thread cut penetration caused due to impact by an external sharp object and hence there was no manufacturing defect was reported in the damaged tyre and hence complainant’s claim was not admitted only according to the terms of warranty policy of the 3^rd opposite party.  All the service engineers of 3^rd opposite party are highly skilled and well trained in the field of inspection of tyre.  If the complainant is not satisfied with inspection report provided by the service engineer then the complainant kindly inspect the damaged tyre from the Government laboratories and submit the inspection report to the Hon’ble Commission.  3^rd opposite party provides warranty on its products.  Further any damage in the tyre is to be inspected by the technical service engineer of the tyre manufacturer and if after inspection the tyre reports damage attributable to manufacturing defect then the same is replaced in accordance with the bridge stone warranty policy.  Warranty stands only against the tyre damaged due to manufacturing defect and not against damages caused by road hazards and other external operational factors.  Bridge Stone warranty policy of clause 4 and 18 which read as under:-

4. Tyres and Tubes shall be covered under warrant for manufacturing defect only.

(i) Damage from road hazards eg. Cut, impact damage, puncture, snag, bruise, stone drill or bulge.

6. 4^th opposite party filed its version contending that it is not a necessary party to this proceedings and any wear and tear or any manufacturing defect in the tyre is not covered under the said policy.  The complainant can seek his remedy only against the manufacturer of the said tyre and the complainant has purchased a policy from 4^th opposite party.  After the expiry of the said policy, he has not renewed the said policy and hence, prays to dismiss the complaint as against the 4^th opposite party.        
7. The complainant has filed his affidavit towards his examination in chief and the same was taken as P.W.1 and produced 9 documents.  On the other hand, opposite party Nos.1,2 and 4 have also filed their affidavit towards their chief examination and the same were taken as R.W.1 to R.W.3 and produced some documents.   
8. Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the records placed along with the pleadings.
9. The points that would arise for our consideration are as here under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby he is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

10. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

      Point No.1 :- Partly in affirmative as against OP Nos.2 and 3 and negative as against OP Nos.1 and 4

      Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

11.       Point No.1:- To substantiate the case, the complainant has been examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his affidavit and got produced 9 documents.  The complainant has reiterated the averments of the complaint in his chief affidavit.  Document No.1 is the temporary certificate of registration.  Document No.2 is the sale certificate dated 25.04.2017 along with government circular.  Document No.3 is the invoice No.1700000337 dated 25.07.2017.  Document No.4 is the tax invoice.  Document No.5 is the legal notice dated 04.11.2017.  Document No.6 is the postal window coupons 4 numbers.  Document No.7 is the postal acknowledgement 3 numbers.  Document No.8 is the reply given by 3^rd opposite party.  Document No.9 is the claim application form and also produced vehicle service invoice dated 03.07.2017.  After the testimony of the complainant, opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 have also filed their affidavit and the same is taken as R.W.1 to R.W.3. 3^rd opposite party has filed list of documents only and not filed any affidavit.  Document No.1 is the copy of e-inspection report dated 04.07.2017.  Document No.2 is the copy of Bridgestone warranty policy.  Document No.3 is the damage mechanism given in Bridgestone Technical Manual.  Document No.4 is the damage mechanism given by Indian Tyre technical Advisory Committee Manual (ITTAC).  Document No.5 is the copy of BIS License for tyre size 205/65 R16.  Document No.6 is the copy of the evaluation report by Indian Rubber Manufacturers Research Association (IRMRA) for certifying tyre size 205/65 R16.  4^th opposite party has also filed copy of the insurance dated started from 29.07.2017 to midnight of 25.04.2018.  After the affidavit of the complainant and opposite parties, 1^st opposite party has filed written arguments and the complainant and other opposite parties have also submitted their oral arguments.  After hearing the arguments a presumption arise about the purchase of the Innova Cysta 2.4 Z BS IV by the complainant on 25.04.2017 for a sum of Rs.20,18,500/.  Further it is the contention of the complainant that the said vehicle being used for his personal use and run upto the mileage of 5067 kilometer for about 2 months.  During usage of the vehicle the complainant observed that there was vobling of rear right side tyre and the complainant informed the same to the showroom and as per their advise wheel alignment was done on 03.07.2017 and rear right side of the tyre check up done as per invoice dated 04.07.2017 even then the rear right side of the said vehicle of the tyre got damaged while using the vehicle on highway road without any contact/impact on the road.  Damage happened in the middle of the road and the same was intimated to 2^nd opposite party on 04.07.2017 and the 2^nd opposite party conveyed the said matter to the tyre manufacturer, but a vague reply was given without any satisfactory reasons.  But, the 2^nd opposite party stated that it is only a dealership outlet and not the manufacturer of accessories of the vehicle and shifted the burden to 3^rd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party contended that the tyre was having tread cut penetration caused due to impact by an external sharp object and hence there was no manufacturing defect.  Any damage in the tyre is to be inspected by the technical service engineer of tyre manufacturer and it after inspection the tyre reports damage attributable to manufacturing defect then the same is replaced in accordance with the Bridgestone warranty policy, warranty stands only against the damage caused by road hazards and other external operational factors.  It is recommended that the vehicle should be regularly inspected and the entrapped stones, metal/glass pieces etc., should be timely removed, this is why each tyre should be checked on regular basis.  But, according to the complainant, he observed vobling of the right side tyre and immediately informed to the 2^nd opposite party and as per their advice wheel alignment was done on 03.07.2017 and rear right side tyre check-up done as per invoice dated 04.07.2017 even then rear right side of the tyre being got damaged while using the vehicle on highway road without any contact/impact.  The said fact was strengthened with the documents produced by the complainant by filing a memo dated 26.08.2022.  The warranty policy of the 3^rd opposite party shows the tyres and tubes will be covered for manufacturing defects for a period mentioned below:

1. Within 3 years – Upto 3 years from the date of purchase or till the date of exposure of tread wear indicators whichever is earlier irrespective of the kilometers covered.
2. After 3 years – Upto 6 years from the date of manufacturing or till the exposure of tread wear indicators whichever is earlier, irrespective of the kilometers covered.

12. Such being the case, the 3^rd opposite party is not absolved from its liability when the complainant uses the vehicle and its tyre as per the directions of the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence, the OP Nos.2 and 3 are answerable to the claim of the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party stated that warranty on tyres are provided by the respective tyre manufacturer and as this complaint pertains to an alleged defect in a tyre, this opposite party has been maliciously made party to this complaint and the same should be dismissed in favour of 1^st opposite party in the interest of justice and equity.
13. Further the complainant made 4^th opposite party Insurance Company Limited as party in this present complaint.  But, the 4^th opposite party said that any tear and wear or any manufacturing defect on the tyre is not covered under the said policy and he can seek the remedy from the manufacturer of the tyre and moreover after the expiry of the policy, the complainant has not renewed the said policy and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint as against 4^th opposite party.
14. After looking into the rival contention of the both parties, it is noticed that there is a manufacturing defect on the tyre of the 3^rd opposite party though the complainant has took every steps with the advice of the 2^nd opposite party with request to the tyre and wheel alignment. Hence, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are liable to replace the tyre with compensation.  The complainant is not entitled to the prayer (c) of the prayer column. Hence, we are of the opinion that the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  Hence, we answered point No.1 partly in affirmative as against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3.  Since there is no ground to proceed against opposite party Nos.1 and 4 and hence we answered the point No.1 in negative as against the opposite party Nos.1 and 4.  
15. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to replace the damaged tyre with a new one within one month from the date of this order, failing which opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are liable to refund the tyre cost.
3. The complainant is not entitled to the relief (c) of the prayer column of the complaint.
4. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the hardship and mental agony and Rs.4,000/- towards the cost of this proceeding within one month from the date of this order, failing which the said amount of Rs.5,000/- + Rs.4,000/- = Rs.9,000/- will carry 10% interest p.a. till payment.
5. The complainant is at liberty to take necessary action, under Section 72 of C.P.Act for non-compliance the order.
6. The complaint against the opposite party Nos.1 and 4 are hereby dismissed.
7. Pending applications if any shall stand disposed off in terms of this final order.
8. Furnish the copy of order to both parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 16^th November, 2022)