IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 360/12
Thursday the 31st day of December, 2015
Petitioner : Paul Varghese,
Poovathumangal House,
Mutholapuram,
Elanji
(Adv. George Boban &
Pillai Jayapprakash Raveendran)
Vs
Opposite parties :1) Popular Hyundai, Popular Motor
World Private Ltd., Thadathil Building
9/548 C Near Municipal park sastri
Road Kottayam 686 001.
2) Popular Hyundai Popular Motor World
Private Ltd. PMC/111/162, century
veetee Arcade near Kottaramattam
private bus stand,Vellapadu, Pala.
(OP 1&2 Adv. Royce Chirayil)
3) Bridge Stone India Pvt Ltd
BSID 34/1241-C Beena Anjamana
Road, Edapally, Cochin 682 024.
(Adv. Anil.D. Kartha)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 4-12-12 is as follows.
The complainant on 28/8/2010 purchased a Verna VGT CRDISXABS car from the 1st opposite party by paying Rs.9,05,000/-. According to the complainant after 1st service, the vehicle reached around 8000 Kms, a third party tyre service point, informed that the tyres are causing unusual tear and wear, when the complainant took the vehicle for checking of the air pressure in the tyres. The tyres of the said car was manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. On service, the mechanic changed the rear tyre to front side and the worn out tyre was replaced in the backside. Then the complainant informed the said defect of the tyre to the engineer and service manager of the opposite party during the second service. And 2nd opposite party promised that they will give 25% discount on new tyres if the complainant would purchase it from their service centre at Pala by giving the old tear and wear tyres. According to the complainant the vehicle was taken to Chennai by his son Anoop Paul and after that while his return from Chennai to home on 23-2-12 at about 6.45 P.M the vehicle met with an accident on the highway in between Chennai and Trichy. According to the complainant, the accident was occurred due to the burst of the front tyre in running, and the vehicle went of the road and hit over the divider and huge damage was caused to the vehicle. The accident was happened only due to the bursting of the front right tyre while running, which was supplied by the 3rd opposite party to the Hundai Motor vehicle. According to the complainant bursting of the tyre is due to the inferior quality of the tyres. Furthermore the 1st and 2nd opposite party has not provide any road side assistance which was offered by them at the time of purchase, where there was a Hundai Service Centre at Perambalur which was 28 Kms near to the accident place. Due to the accident complainant has to spent Rs.1,39,992/- for the maintenance of the vehicle and Rs.4500/- as towing charge. It is only because of the tyre bursted at just 22,600Kms. The accident happened only due to the faulty parts supplied by the opposite parties and they are responsible to compensate the complainant for the loss sustained. Out of the total amount spent by the complainant Rs.75613/- was reimbursed by the HDFC. ERGO General Insurance Company and Rs. 68,879/- was spent by the complainant from his pocket. According to the complainant the act of opposite party in supplying an inferior quality parts and tyres, amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
First and 2nd opposite party jointly filed version admitting the sale of the vehicle to the complainant. The vehicle was delivered after service and the complainant signed over the repair order endorsing full satisfaction of service rendered by the 2nd opposite party. According to the 1st and 2nd opposite party they have no knowledge about the wear and tear of the tyres which is informed by a third party service point. The complainant took the advice of unauthorized service point and he himself is responsible for the replacement of tyres. According to the 1st and 2nd opposite party they never gave any offer that 25% discount on new tyres while at the second service. If any warranty is given to the tyres, it is given by the manufactures, the 3rd opposite party. According to the 1st and 2nd opposite party the accident is not occurred by bursting of tyres due to its inferior quality. The 2nd opposite party had supplied original tyres duly tested for its quality to the complainant. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the complainant’s son and thereby hit on the divider and causing the bursting of the tyres. The complainant never asked for any road side assistance of the 1st and 2nd opposite party. According to the 1st and 2nd opposite party there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them. And they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Third opposite party filed version admitting that they had providing its tyres to the vehicle manufacturer Hyundai Motors India Ltd for its vehicle model Verna over a long period of time and both vehicle manufacturer and 3rd opposite party are well known and reputed for quality products & service being provided to the customers. According to the 3rd opposite party any damage in the tyre is to be inspected by technical service engineer of them, who is technically trained and qualified for inspection of the tyre and if after inspection the damaged tyre reports any manufacturing defect, then the same is replaced in accordance with the 3rd opposite party warranty policy. The allegation made by the complainant that the tyre got burst due to its inferior quality is not correct. According to the 3rd opposite party neither the complainant nor the opposite party 1st and 2 have approached them for inspection of the tyres under question. It is also submitted that the 3rd opposite party have come to know about the complainant’s complaint regarding damage in the tyres only on the receipt of the notice from the Forum. According to the 3rd opposite party complainant has not produced any expert report from the government approved laboratory in support of serious allegation made by them about the inferior quality of the tyres. Without a test report the complainant being not a technical expert cannot reach the conclusion about the defect in the tyres. The real cause of damage in the tyres involved in question can only be known after inspection of the tyres, by the technical service engineer of the 3rd opposite party or the tyres can also be sent to the government approved laboratory for the inspection of quality or any defect find out as per Section 13(1)© of the Consumer Protection Act. According to the 3rd opposite party the complainant never approached them for inspection of tyres. The liability for any claim by the complainant cannot be imposed on the 3rd opposite party unless the tyres are produced for the inspection of the technical service engineer of the 3rd opposite party. According to the 3rd opposite party there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for considerations are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavits of the complainant and 3rd opposite party. And Ext.A1 to A7 documents from the side of the complainant.
Point No.1
The crux of the complainant’s case is that bursting of the tyre, supplied by the 3rd opposite party, his car sustained severe damages by an accident. According to the complainant since the tyre supplied by the 3rd opposite party was inferior quality the accident was occurred. Even though complainant has a definite case that the bursting of the tyre is due to the manufacturing defects, nothing has been produced on record to prove the said allegation. Furthermore complainant has not produced any scrap of paper to prove that the accident was occurred due to the bursting of the tyre. In the lack of evidence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in Point No.1 complaint is dismissed. No cost ordered.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2015.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents for the complainant
Ext.A1-Copy of Customer’s Account Settlement voucher
Ext.A2-Copy of Receipt No.292 dtd 30-4-2012
Ext.A3-Copy of receipt no.417dtd 11/5/12
Ext.A4-Copy of cash bill No.1073 dtd 25/3/12
Ext.A5-Copy of cash bill No.120120000091dtd 12/5/12
Ext.A6-Copy of Private car package policy No.2311200032116201000
dtd 28/8/11 of HDFC ERGO
Ext.A7-Power of Attorney
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
