Present    : Smt.Seena H, President

               : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member       

           : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member                 Date of filing: 22/01/2011     

                             (C.C.No.14/2011)

Sreenivasan,

Amrutha Kripa,

Adakkaputhur Post,

Cherpulacherry,

Vellinezhi,

Palakkad.

( Adv.T.V.Pradeesh)                                                 -        Complainant

                                                                     V/s

1. Palghat Hyundai

    Rep.by Assistant Service  Manager,

    C/o.Palghat Automotive P.Ltd.

    Marutha Road,

    Koottupatha, Palakkad.

    (By Adv.M.Ramesh)

2. Apollo Tyres Ltd.,

    No.421 A & C, Ward No.1

    Edapally, Cochin – 680 024

    Rep.by its Manager

   (Adv.P.C.Sivadas)                                                         -        Opposite parties    

  O R D E R

          By  Smt.PREETHA.G.NAIR, MEMBER

    The complainant had bought a Hyundai I20 car from the 1^st opposite party on 27/3/2010. From the initial stages itself the complainant has faced several problems and defects in the vehicle. One serious problem seen in the car was that a side wall bulge has been seen in the car tyre. This was informed to the 1^st opposite party who has in turn reported the same to the 2^nd opposite party. Photographs were also taken and sent. The complainant has directly by mail and telephone called upon the opposite parties to correct the defect in the tyre. The 1^st opposite party had assured that the defect would be  cured if the tyre  sent to 2^nd opposite party and it would be repaired or replaced. The 1^st opposite party has given several false assurances and the complainant was clearly made to believe that the tyre would be repaired or replaced. Then the complainant received a reply from the opposite parties that the side wall bulge is due to external impact and failure is not due to any manufacturing defect. The tyre  was despatched to the workshop of 1^st opposite party with a rejection letter. The opposite parties have spent little attention to the problems of the car. The act of opposite parties is clearly deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties failed to grant proper service and attention to the complainant. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to

1. Replace the tyre and correct the side wall bulge
2. Pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony
3. Pay Rs.1,000/- as the cost of the proceedings

 Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased a Hyundai i20 car on 27/3/2010. The Hyundai New Vehicle Warranty Policy is handed over to the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle. The conditions of warranty is clearly mentioned  in the policy. The warranty with regard to tyre and tubes originally equipped on Hyundai vehicle are warranted directly  by the respective manufacturer and not by Hyundai Motor India Limited. The tyre used in the vehicle are manufactured by 2^nd opposite party. The complaint of the complainant was forwarded to the 2^nd opposite party and they informed that the defect is not a manufacturing defect and is due to external impact or inflation. The duty of the dealer is  to supply the vehicle and attend to the services. The 1^st opposite party has forwarded the complaint to the 2^nd opposite party and dismantled the tyre, checked the tyre and took the material top  the agent of Apollo tyre. According to 2^nd opposite party there is no manufacturing defect and the problem does not attract warranty. The 1^st opposite party has changed the tyre  to stepny. There is no lapse of service from the part of the 1^st opposite party. So the 1^st opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint along with cost.

2^nd opposite party stated that the tyre has  no manufacturing defects.   As per the complaint, it is not clear as to the use of vehicles.  The 2^nd opposite party’s experts inspected the disputed tyre and it was found that the sidewall Bulge is due to some external impact or under inflation. So there is no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party.  The defect may occurs only due to running of vehicle without sufficient air in tyre. To this defect on the side of complainant, opposite parties are not liable.  The allegations are exaggerated and false.  So the 2^nd opposite party prayed that complaint may be dismiss with cost.

Both parties filed affidavit. Ext.A1 to A4 marked on the side of the complainant.  Ext.B1 marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party. Both parties filed arguments notes.

Issues to be considered are

1)    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2)    If so, what is the relief and cost ?

Issues 1 & 2

Admittedly the complainant had purchased a Hyundai I20 car from the 1^st opposite party who is the dealer and 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer. The complainant stated that a side wall bulge had been seen in the tyre of the car. In Ext.A2 attached to the photos of tyre shows the side wall bulge of the tyre.  Also in Ext.A2 dated 14/10/10 the 1^st opposite party stated that “sending the photographs of tyre having the problem of i20, Please go through this and reply as early as possible. Make arrangements to replace the tyre under warranty also.” In short the 1^st opposite party clearly stated in Ext.A2 that make arrangements to replace the tyre under warranty.  The 2^nd opposite party stated that the defect may occurs only due to running of vehicle  without sufficient air in tyre. The 2^nd opposite party has not taken expert commissioner to prove the defects occurs due to running of vehicle without sufficient air in tyre.  In Ext.A3 shows the cause of failure is sidewall bulge due to impact or under inflation. The 1^st opposite party is the dealer and the complainant had purchased the car from them. In Ext.A3 the 2^nd opposite party stated that the failure is not due to any manufacturing defect  and  not covered under customer friendly claim policy.

In Ext.A3 mentioned that the manufacture year and month was October 2009. The claim date was 21/7/2010 and the award date was also 21/7/2010. The 2^nd opposite party argued that as per the complaint it is not clear that when the complainant faced the defect in tyre and how many kilometers the vehicle has used. But the 2^nd opposite party has not cross examined the complainant.  The complainant purchased the car on 27/3/2010 and the claim date mentioned in Ext.A3 was 21/7/2010.  Therefore the defects of the tyre was noted within 4 months from the date of purchase of the car. The 1^st opposite party produced the copy of Hyundai Warranty Policy and marked as Ext.B1. The warranty period is 24 months from the date of delivery to the first purchaser irrespective of the mileage. However the warranty for i20 being used for commercial purpose such as Taxi / Tourist operation is 24 months / 40,000  Kilometers from the date of delivery which so ever is earliest.  In the present case there was no dispute regarding the vehicle is used for commercial purpose or not. So we considered that the warranty shall exist for a period of 24 months. In Ext.A3 clearly shows that the defects of tyre was noted within the warranty period. In Ext.A2 dated 15/7/10 the 1^st opposite party stated that make arrangements to replace the tyre under warranty. It is crystal clear that the 1^st opposite party noted the defects in the tyre within the warranty period. But the opposite parties have not repaired or replaced the tyre.  The complainant has not taken expert commission to prove the manufacturing   defects of the tyre.  So we cannot considered the replace of the defective tyre and correct the side wall bulge. It is a fit case for awarding compensation for deficiency in service.

In view of the above  discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part opposite parties.

In the result the complaint partly allowed.  We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.

        Pronounced in the open court on this the  24^th day of January  2012

                                                                                     Sd/-

Seena.H

President

                                                                                    Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

                                                                                     Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1.Ext. A1  – Photocopy of Email dated 17/07/10 sent to the complainant by the 1^st

                    opposite party

2. Ext. A2 –  Photocopy of Email dated 15/07/10 sent by 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd

                     opposite party alongwith photographs

3. Ext. A3 –  Photocopy of rejection letter dated 21/7/10 issued by 2^nd opposite party

4. Ext. A4 -  Photocopy of Email dated 22/07/10 sent to the complainant by the 1^st

                    opposite party  

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

1.Ext. B1 - Photocopy of Hyundai Warranty Policy conditions

Examined on the side of the complainant

Nil

Examined on the side of the opposite parties

Nil

Costs

Rs.1,000/- Allowed as cost of the proceedings.