IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 210/2019 (filed on 25/11/2019)
Petitioner : Varghese P.V.
` Payyampallil House,
Panackavayal,
Mukoottuthara P.O.
Erumely, Kottayam Dist.
Pin – 686510.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Nippon Toyota,
Nippon Motor Corporation
Pvt. Ltd. M.C. Road,
Nattakom P.O.
Kottayam – 686013. (Adv. Sajan A. Varghese)
2) Nippon Toyota,
Nippon Motor Corporation Pvt.
Ltd. Pala, Meencachil East P.O.
Pala, Ponkunnam, Pin – 686577.
3) M/S. Bridge Stone India Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No.A43, Phase – II,
MIDC Chakan Village Sawardari,
Taluka Khed, Pune District,
Maharashtra.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Complainant purchased a Toyota Crysta on 29-04-2017 bearing No.KL-34E4240. The 1st service of the vehicle was done in Kottayam service center on 29-05-2017 at a mileage of 1216. The 2nd service along with wheel alignment check was also done in Pala service centre on 24-11-2017 at a mileage of 5467 kms. On almost 9,000 kms, the complainant had noticed that an uneven wear and tear started developing in the inner wall of the backside of ‘bridge stone tyres’ which is provided with the vehicle by Toyota Company. Again wheel balancing and wheel alignment was done at PEE CEE J.K. Radial Tyre show room at Ponkunnam during June 2018 at a mileage of 10,000 kms. A periodical service was done on 05-09-2018, 12-12-2018, 09-02-2019, 18-04-2019 and 07-06-2019. Inspite of all these periodical services, the uneven inner wear and tear of tyres persisted, aggravated and continued. The said issue has become so worse that the inner side thread of tyres are appeared out where as the centre surface part of the tyres remained without wear and tear. Upon the request of the complainant, 2nd opposite party arranged a checkup by the 3rd opposite party and their employee verified and inspected the tyres at Pala showroom on28-05-2019 and given a report stating that there was no manufacturing defect of tyres and the claim of the complainant for replacement of tyres was rejected. By the time the vehicle has completed 30,000 kms and the condition of all tyres became so worse. So that all tyres required to be replaced with new tyre. In such a compelling circumstances, the complainant purchased 4 new tyres on 24-06-2019 at the cost of Rs.20,000/- plus wheel alignment charge of Rs.6,000/-. The respondents denied their liability to replace the tyres or cure the defect. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
Upon notice from this Commission, 1st opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed version. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties did not care to appear before the Commission and filed their version. Hence the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are set exparte.
Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows.
The 1st opposite party is an authorized dealer of Toyota vehicle. A Toyota Innova Crysta vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the 1st opposite party. The 1st service of the vehicle was done at the 1st opposite party’s service center at Kottayam. No complaints of any wear and tear of tyres were made to the 1st opposite party by the complainant at that time. The complainant had no complaints with the service that was provided.
It is submitted by the 1st opposite party that the tyres of the vehicle are warranted under a separate warranty provided by the manufacturer. The complainant has no grievance regarding the service offered by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties for vehicle. The complainant had availed service of some outside agency also. As such it can be seen that he has no complaint with any service of 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The complainant has no cause of action against the 1st opposite party. There is no act of unfair trade practice or deficiency in any service as alleged in the compliant.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Ext.A1 to A3. Opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.B1 was marked.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?
- Relief and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point no.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
The specific case of the complainant is that he had purchased Toyota Innova Crysta vehicle on 29-04-2017. The complainant alleged that due to the manufacturing defect of the tyres which was provided by the manufacturer of the car at the time of purchase the uneven inner side wear and tear is caused to the tyre of his car. According to him, as per the directions and manual issued by the manufacturer who is the 2nd opposite party here, he had done all the periodical services. Ext.A3 is the service record of the vehicle bearing Register No.KL34E4240. On perusal of Ext.A3 series we can see that the complainant vehicle is regularly serviced at the authorized service centre of the 2nd opposite party. It is averred in the complaint that when the vehicle of the complainant almost completed 9,000 kms he had noticed an uneven wear and tear of the tyre in the inner wall of back side tyres. It is submitted by the complainant that at the time of all regular service of the vehicle he had done the wheel alignment and wheel rotation to avoid further more uneven wear and tear of the tyres. Ext.A1 proves that A1 is the inspection report by the Technician of the 3rd opposite party at the odo meter reading of 29,567. It is stated in Ext.A1 that the complaint is of excess wear of the tyres. On inspection it was found by the technician that the tyres had been suffering one sided shoulder wear and it was not due to the manufacturing defect. It is pertinent to note that the said inspection was done 2 years after the purchase of vehicle at the odo meter reading of 29567 kms. On perusal of Ext.A3(g) service history we can see that inner and outer wear of all running tyres are very high. Rear left hand tyre damaged and thread visible. Ext.A3(g) is issued on 24-06-2019. At that time mileage of the vehicle was 30753 kms. The 1st opposite party contented that they are only the authorized dealer of the 2nd opposite party. Ext.B1 is the printout of the page No.351 of the vehicle warranty of the 1st opposite party. As per Ext.B1, tyres are warranted with a separated warranty provided by the manufacturer. It is further stated in the Ext.B1 that in case service network of the respective manufacturer is not available in India, the Toyota shall handle the warranty on their manufacturer as per the manufacturer terms and conditions. Thus the 1st and 2nd opposite party are responsible for warranty of the tyres of the vehicle which was sold by the 1st and 2nd opposite party only if the service network of the said manufacturer is not available in India. Here the case in hand the complainant had no case that the 3rd opposite party who is the manufacturer of the tyres which were provided along with the vehicle purchased from the 1st opposite party had no service network in India. Thus we are of the opinion that the 1st and 2nd opposite party are not liable to provide any indemnity for the damage caused to the tyre of the vehicle of the complainant.
Moreover it is pertinent to note that the vehicle of the complainant had completed 30753 kms on 24-06-2019. After completing the above said kms., the complainant had replaced tyres of his vehicle. Moreover the complainant had not produced any evidence to show that the 3rd opposite party had offered an uneventful usage of tyres for a particular period. The complainant had not adduced any evidence to show that the uneven wear and tear of the tyres was caused due to the manufacturing defect of the tyres. The complainant has not taken any steps to examine the tyres by an expert of an appropriate laboratory to prove the manufacturing defect as alleged by him. Without any expert evidence on this aspect, we cannot arrive at a conclusion that the tyres which were manufactured by the 3rd opposite party are suffering from manufacturing defect. In the light of above discussion and available evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case with cogent evidence and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this 12th day of July, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 - Copy of claim form dtd.28-05-17 by 3rd opposite party
A2 - Copy of bill for Rs.dtd.24-06-19 issued by Car Tek tyres
A3 – service report details
A3 series – service report details (7 nos)
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of owner’s manual (page No.350 and 351)
By Order
Senior Superintendent
