Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/691

THE MANAGER MRF LIMITD - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNNOSE JACOB - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jul 2017

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL.NO.691/2015

 JUDGMENT DATED : 08.01.2018

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No. 291/2013on the file of CDRF,Idukki  , order dated :22.04.2015 )

 

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN          : PRESIDENT

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                                   : MEMBER

APPELLANT/2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY

          The Manager, MRF Limited, Palarivattam, Kochi-682 025

 

          By advocate Sri.Nair Ajay Krishnan and Sri.Narayanan.R.

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY

1.  Punnoose Jacob, Mangalam House, Thodupuzha P.O,

Idukki-685 584

2.  The Manager, TV Sundaram Iyengar & Sons, Kalamaserri P.O, Kochi-682 003

 

By Advocate for R2 Sri.Renjith.R

 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

Second opposite party in C.C 291/2013 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, for short  “District Forum”, has filed this appeal challenging the Order of the forum directing opposite prties to refund Rs.7400/- (Rupees Seven thousand four hundred), price of a damaged tyre, with cost of Rs.2000/ (Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the Order, failing which to pay such amount with 12% interest from the date of default.

3. Complainant, admittedly, purchased a Renault diesel car from the first opposite party  dealer of that motor vehicle, which was provided warranty of two years or 5000 kms.   Tyres fitted in that vehicle were manufactured by second opposite party.  Within one month from the date of purchase of  vehicle one of the tyres fitted on the front side was found to be defective and useless.  That tyre was produced before first opposite party, who then forwarded it to second opposite party, its manufacturer.  Reporting that  expert engaged by second  opposite party after inspection of the tyre  opined that damage to the tyre was caused due to  impact with some external sharp object and defect was not on account of any manufacturing defect, second opposite party disowned its liability, and, it was reiterated by first opposite party also to disown its liability.  Complaintant was thereupon forced to  purchase a new tyre spending an amount of Rs.7400/- (Rupees Seven thousand four hundred). Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  complaint was laid before the forum for refund of the  amount spent for purchasing a new tyre with 12% interest and compensation of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) and cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand) from opposite parties.  Opposite parties filed separate versions disputing the claims of complainant.  First opposite party contended that the tyre, battery etc of the vehicle are proprietary items collected  by   manufacturer of  the vehicle  from producers of those items and they are governed by  warranty guaranteed separately  for  the respective items.  Relying on a report collected by second opposite party from an expert that the damage to the tyre was not on account of manufacturing defect the first opposite party contended that it has no liability to compensate the applicant.  Second opposite party in its version banking upon an expert opinion collected contended that the tyre was damaged due to impact from an external sharp object.
4. The damaged tyre was sent to an expert through the forum and Ext.C1 report was collected.ion. The evidence consisted of the testimonies of complainant as PW.1 and that of  expert who prepared Ext.C1 as PW.2, and Exts.P1 to P4 on the side of complainant. Ext.R1 was exhibited on the side of second opposite party.
5. After appreciating the  materials with reference to the facts and circumstances presented the forum below held that Ext.C1 is not conclusive and reliable.  Taking note that  defect to the tyre of a new vehicle purchased by complainant was caused within one month from its purchase and the benefit of warranty has to be  extended to him the forum below accepted the case of complainant and allowed his complaint in part directing opposite parties to pay the sums as indicated above.  Aggrieved by the Order second opposite party has filed this appeal.
6. We heard counsel on both sides and perused the records.  Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon Ext.C1 report prepared over the damaged tyre  contended that the damage sustained to the tyre was not on account of any manufacturing defect, but due to impact with some external sharp object.  In such circumstance the appellant/second opposite party, manufacturer of the tyre, has no liability to compensate the loss sustained to the complainant for the damaged tyre, according to the counsel.  We notice that the manufacturer/second opposite party had rejected the claim of complainant stating that its inspection revealed that damage to the tyre was due to external damage/scoring on having a sudden impact with sharp object.  Ext.R1 addressed to the complainant rejecting his claim is styled as inspection report/rejection advice.  Second opposite party has not placed before the forum the inspection report prepared by its expert over the tyre.  What is seen from Ext.R1 is that expressing an opinion that its inspection over the tyre revealed external damage/scoring it has rejected the claim. Who inspected the tyre and if so on what date and what were the test conducted to form an opinion as indicated and  the report prepared thereof were not  disclosed to the forum. However, it has sought to establish its defence as stated in Ext.R1 on the basis of Ext.C1 report prepared over the damaged vehicle when  it was sent to the Rubber Research Institute of India.  Taking note that the C1 report stated that the tyre was tested by a team of Technologists and Scientists with  no indication as to  who was the expert who inspected and formed the opinion given in Ext.C1, the lower forum  held that the  report is not reliable.  Some general opinions are stated in the report that a hole forming during manufacture of radial tyre is not possible.  On what basis it is  opined is not  borne out by the report.  A radial tyre once manufactured is free from any defect whatsoever seems to be the opinion furnished under Ext.C1 which can never be accepted.  Formation of a small air buble during  manufacture of  the tyre on all accounts is possible and it cannot be ruled out as opined in Ext.C1.  When the complainant was denied the opportunity to know and further to examine the expert who gave  opinions under Ext.C1, which states of that  inspection was done several persons without naming the expert who headed the team and thus competent to give evidence on such report the forum below was perfectly justified in holding that the report was not acceptable. Looking at the figures of damaged tyre attached to Ext.C1 report, it appears,  the opinion formed that the cut portion of the upper side wall of the tyre was due to impact from an external object is hardly susceptible .  There is every reason to hold that  damage sustained to the tyre was on account of its manufacturing defect and not due to impact with any external sharp object.  As rightly pointed out by the lower forum the complainant  who purchased a motor vehicle fitted with radial tyres, one of which was  found later damaged, was entitled to the benefit of warranty when such damage to  tyre  occurred within one month from the date of purchase of  vehicle.  The fact that the second opposite party (manufacturer)  withheld its inspection report over the tyre from the purview of the Forum is also a material circumstance to hold that the damage to  tyre was on account of its manufacturing defects  It has rejected the claim of complainant, allegedly, based on an inspection report prepared over the damaged tyre.  Complainant took steps for collecting  an inspection report through the  Forum would not enable the second opposite party from withholding its inspection report which was set up as a defence to reject his claim compelling him to approach the forum with the complaint.  The finding of the forum that Ext.C1 report is unacceptable is fully justified.  On the materials placed,  the Forum below was fully justified in holding that the case of complainant deserved acceptance.  District forum has allowed the complaint only in part directing payment of price of the new tyre purchased with compensation of Rs.10000/-(Rupees Ten thousand) and cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand). Sums awarded on the above counts are just and reasonable and no interference is called for.
7. Appeal is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand).

 

JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN:  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V.JOSE                            :  MEMBER

pr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE KERALA STATE              CONSUMER DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSIION

VAZHUTHACAUDE,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

          JUDGMENT IN  A691/2015

         DATED:08.01.2018