BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 10/05/2011

Date of Order : 31/07/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 236/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :

The complainant purchased a brand new car from the 2^nd opposite party on 28-01-2011, which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The additional 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the tyres. On 24-04-2011, during night on his way to Thrissur one of the tyres burst due to side wall cut. The defective tyre was replaced immediately with the spare tyre in the vehicle. But after replacing, uneasiness in driving was felt and on further verification it was found that the spare tyre was of different size than the other tyres. The 4 original tyres were manufactured by the 3^rd additional opposite party. The spare tyre was manufactured by M/s. Continental Tyres Limited. No alloy wheel was provided for the spare tyre. The complainant was compelled to purchase another tyre by paying Rs. 8,700/-. The act of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to supply spare tyre by different size without alloy wheel amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the newly bought tyre and also entitled to get the spare tyre with alloy wheel of the same size of the other 4 tyres together with compensation and costs of the proceedings.

2. The version of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties is as follows :-

The tyres fitted with the vehicle are mounted on alloy disk. The spare wheel is not fitted with alloy disk. The difference is only in the width of the tyres. As regards Skoda Yeti cars are concerned, the spare wheel and its compartment in the dickey space are manufactured in the standardized way to accommodate the spare wheel. The spare wheel is not meant for regular onward journey. It is only for taking the vehicle to the nearest workshop. The same is the common practice followed by a good number of new generation car makers. The complainant is not entitled to get refund of the price of the tyre, since the damage of the tyre was caused due to piercing by a sharp object and there is no manufacturing defect in it. The complaint is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

3. In spite of receipt of notice of the complaint, the 3^rd opposite party did not respond to the same for their own reasons. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the contesting parties.

4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the damaged tyre?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the spare tyre with alloy wheel of the same size of the other tyres?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings?

5. Point No. i. :- Admittedly, the complainant purchased a brand new car from the 2^nd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. According to the complainant, one of the tyres of the car burst due to side wall cut on 24-04-2011 during his journey to Thrissur. But nothing is on record to substantiate the same except for the tall averment. The complainant has not even cared to produce the damaged tyre before proper authority to substantiate his contention. In the absence of the same, we cannot go into this matter further. We refrain.

6. Point No. ii. :- Admittedly, the 4 tyres of the car were manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party and the spare tyre was manufactured by M/s. Continental Tyres Limited. Indisputably, the spare tyre is of a different size. According to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, the spare tyre is meant for taking the vehicle to the nearest workshop and the speed limit is 80 Kms. and it is stated in the owners manual. However, nothing is on record to substantiate the above contention of the opposite parties in this Forum. Seemingly, the above contention does not hold water logically, because there has been no precedents ever as to the contention raised by any company, we do not think that any customer would be satisfied with such a condition affixed to the spare tyre in the car, simply because it goes against the grain of the word 'spare'. Accordingly, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are legally liable to issue a spare tyre with alloy wheel in tune with the specifications of the other 4 tyres of the car.

7. Point No. iii. :- The primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely, no order for compensation is called for, however, the complainant has necessarily had to approach this Forum to ventilate his grievance on the second issue, which has been found adequately. We fix an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that,

1. the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall jointly and severally issue a brand new spare tyre with alloy wheel to the complainant in tune with the specifications of the 4 other tyres. The complainant is directed to return the disputed spare tyre to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties simultaneously.

2. the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall also pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^th day of July 2012.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========