By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant purchased two tyres from the first opposite party for his vehicle KL 43 C 9179. The tyres are manufactured by the second opposite party. While the complainant was driving his vehicle in a slow speed and observing all the traffic rules and regulations the right left side tyre brocken from vilangade on 22/06/2020 on the way from panampilavu to vilangade. On 22/06/2020 itself the complainant approached the first opposite party and there by the first opposite party collected the tyre from the complainant and forwarded to the second opposite party. The complainant received message from the second opposite party acknowledging the receipt of tyre and the complaint on 24/06/2020 and later on 29/06/2020. Thereafter one month when the complainant contacted the first opposite party the opposite party returned the tyre stating that the tyre will not get damaged unless it contact against a hard object. The opposite party refused to replace the tyre. Though the complainant contacted several times the opposite parties even did not care to attend the phone call of complainant.
2. The complainant submitted that he purchased the tyre on 20/06/2020 and within two days after covering 150 kilometres the tyre stands damaged. He submitted that mean while the vehicle did not met with any accident and that the tyre is worth Rs.5, 000/-. Hence the complainant prayed compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of financial loss and also 50,000/- rupees on account of defamation caused to the complainant due to the act of the opposite parties. Complainant submitted that he was traveling in the vehicle along with two surveyors for the measurement of a land and doing survey work. Hence the complainant prayed compensation and cost of the proceedings.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. The opposite parties submitted the complaint is not maintainable since it is not supported with lab report as contemplated under section 38 (2) (c) of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
4. The opposite parties denied the purchase of tyres on 20/03/2020 due to want of knowledge. It is further submitted that the opposite party company neither given any performance guarantee / warrantee / assurance regarding tyres to the complainant nor authorised any person to give any guarantee / warrantee / assurance in the matter. The warrantee / guarantee, if any is only regarding manufacturing defect to the tyres and the opposite party denied the allegation of manufacturing defect to the tyres.
5. The opposite party submitted that in case of receipt of defective tyre it will be inspected by trained technical service personal in order to assess the problem in the defective tyres and said technical personal shall give an inspection report as the outcome of such inspection done, spelling out the actual cause of such damage / defect, if any and it is only when such tyres suffers from manufacturing defect the manufacturing company shall be made liable or responsible and not otherwise.
6. The opposite party submitted that the tyre of size 215/75 R15 LT MMT XA1 TL bearing serial No. 60334770620 was received for examination from M/s Alpha tyres on 24/06/2020. Soon after the receipt of the said tyre complaint docket No. 902090220 dated 24/06/2020 was raised and the said tyre was thoroughly inspected by the technical service personal Mr Derick. K, kuriakose who has undergone intensive training in evaluation of tyre. His examination revealed that the tyre was damaged due to external damage / scoring caused due to sudden impact with sharp object. It is submitted the same not due to any manufacturing defect of the tyre.
7. The inspection report dated 24/06/2020 sent to the complainant on 24/06/2020 by way of SMS to the registered mobile number which was provided by the complainant at the time of submission of tyre for inspection. Necessary instruction was also given to the complainant to collect the tyre from M/s Alpha tyres. The opposite party submitted the tyre involved in the complaint is of a true and merchantable quality absolutely free from any manufacturing defect.
8. The opposite party submitted an external damage / scoring to a tyre is caused due to impact against a hard object, over load, over inflating of tyres or sudden breaking in overload condition. It is submitted as per the averment in the complaint itself the complainant was traveling to vilangade uttumvuiramgi mala which reveals the condition of the road which the complainant was travelling. The submission of the opposite party is that the tyre damaged purely due to the negligence of the complainant as complainant has failed to drive carefully maintained correct load, inflation pressure and speed and due to the negligence had resulted in causing damage to the tyre.
9. The opposite party submitted that they are the largest range of tyres manufacturing company and enjoys the highest brand preference of superior quality, appearance and long life. The tyres /tubes manufactured by the opposite party adhere to strict standard of quality and is free from any manufacturing defect. The opposite party is not liable if the product is damaged due to misuse negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance or accident, normal wear tear.
10. The opposite party further submitted that tyre being a rubber product can be damaged for any reason other than manufacturing defect. The life performance of a tyre depends on many factors like air pressure, driving habit, road conditions, load carried by the vehicle, mechanical conditions and / or irregularities of the vehicle, proper maintenance of the tyres, speed, nature of terrain i.e. level ground, hilly and / or winding roads, the season of the year when the tyre was used, position of the tyres on the vehicle, inflation / pressure and the external object with which the tyre may cum in contact while in motion, etc. So the complaint tyre of the complainant might have been suffered due to any one or more of these eventualities.
11. The opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged in the complaint. The liability to the opposite party arises only when there is manufacturing defect. Hence the complaint is liable to dismiss with cost to the opposite party and there is no basis for the compensation claimed in the complaint. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony, economic loss as alleged in the complaint.
12. The complainant and opposite parties field affidavit and document. The documents of the complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A3. The documents of the opposite party marked Ext B1 to B4. The commission report marked as Ext. C1. One witness Mr Arun examined on the side of complainant as PW1. Ext. A1 is copy of tax invoice dated 20/06/2020 for Rs. 10,000/-. Ext. A2 is copy of claim forwarding docket dated 22/06/2020. Ext. A3 is copy of photographs of defective tyre. Ext. B is copy of power of attorney dated 02/04/2024. Ext. B2 is copy of claim forwarding docket dated 22/06/2020. Ext. B3 is copy of inspection report – rejection advice dated 26/04/2020. Ext. B4 is copy of letter issued by alpha tyres to the complainant dated 24/06/2020.
13. Heard complainant and opposite parties, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether the tyre is with manufacturing defect?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Relief and cost
14. Point No. 1 to 3
The case of the complainant is that he purchased two tyres from the first opposite party for his vehicle on 20/06/2020 which is evident from Ext. A1. He submitted that on 22/06/2020 while he was driving the vehicle in slow speed with abundant care and caution and observing all the traffic rules and regulations the front left side tyre broken. At the time of incident he was traveling in the vehicle along with two surveyors. Immediately on 22/06/2020 itself the complainant reported the same to the first opposite party and the first opposite party forwarded the defective tyre to the second opposite party. But the second opposite party after examination reported that the tyre is free from manufacturing defect and the damage may be a result of sudden contact with sharp object. Hence the complainant approached this commission for redressal of the grievance.
15. The complainant herein has taken steps to get the tyre examined by an expert. But it could fond difficult to find an expert to give an opinion regarding the manufacturing defect of the tyre. Thereafter the complainant requested before this commission to address the rubber research institute of India, rubber board, Kottayam under ministry of commerce and industry government of India. The reply from the said institute was that thy have taken a decision not to receive any disputed tyres for testing and providing reports since 2018 and accordingly they are not receiving any disputed tyres for testing and analysis .
16. The said letter further suggested to contact the rubber manufactures research association Mumbai which is having a tyre research, testing and certification laboratory for the same purpose. Thereafter an email was sent to the concerned institute located Mumbai and the reply from the said institute was the minimum charges for the testing of the same as 25,000/- + GST. Then the complainant instead of referring the tyre for the lab took out an Advocate commission and the commissioner filed a report which is marked as Ext. C1. The commissioner reported that the tyre involved in the complaint is a new one which has crossed below 1000 kilometres. He reported that the crack caused to the tyre is to the side wall and which is about more than 6 cm. He also mentioned that the crack is located mid portion of the side wall. He stated that he could not find sign of contact with hard object for causing crack to the tyre. That be so the reason for the crack may be due to manufacturing defect. The complainant examined one Mr Arun as PW1 who was a co passenger during the time of incident. He also deposed before this commission that there was no incident of hit of tyre against hard object. The opposite party could not establish the said crack to the tyre was caused due to the contact with hard object that being the fact reveal before this commission there is no reason to discard the case of complainant. The commission finds the tyre involved in the complaint was with manufacturing defect for which the complainant is entitled redressal of his grievance.
17. The complainant submitted that he purchased two tyres from the first opposite party as per Ext. A1 and the total cost of two tyres appears Rs. 10,000/-. Hence the complaint submitted the cost of the tyre as 5,000/-. The complainant submitted that he was traveling in the vehicle along with two other surveyors for doing survey work. Due to the incident they could not complete their work and thereby caused inconvenience hardship and also financial loss. But there is no document to show exact extent of loss sustained to the complainant. Though the complaint prayed compensation and cost as Rs.75, 000/- the commission finds Rs.25, 000/- will be reasonable amount as compensation. The complaint also entitled cost of Rs. 10,000/-
18. In the light of above fact and circumstances the complaint stands allowed as follows:-
1) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)
to the complainant as cost of the tyre.
2) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five
thousand only) to the complainant as compensation on account of unfair trade
practice and thereby caused inconvenience, hardship and mental agony
sustained to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the first opposite party is liable to pay 9% interest for the above said amount from the date of filing this complaint to till date of payment.
Dated this 24th day of October, 2024.
Mohandasan. K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1
PW1: Arun. O S/o Velukutty
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A3
Ext.A1: copy of tax invoice dated 20/06/2020 for Rs. 10,000/-.
Ext.A2: copy of claim forwarding docket dated 22/06/2020.
Ext A3: copy of photographs of defective tyre.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B4
Ext.B1: copy of power of attorney dated 02/04/2024.
Ext.B2: copy of claim forwarding docket dated 22/06/2020.
Ext.B3: copy of inspection report – rejection advice dated 26/04/2020.
Ext.B4: copy of letter issued by alpha tyres to the complainant dated 24/06/2020.
Ext.C1: Commissioner’s report (Commissioner Mr. Arun)
Mohandasan. K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
