This C.C. is coming before us for hearing in the presence of             Sri K. Srinivasu, Advocates for complainant; and of Sri. K. Babji, Advocate for opposite party No.2; opposite party No.1 is appeared in-person; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased two numbers 700 R 15 mileage tyres vide tyre No.2015 for Rs.7,300/- and the tyre No. 1615 for Rs.7,200/- from the opposite party No.1 with one year warranty, in total, the complainant had paid Rs.14,500/- to the opposite parties for purchasing of two tyres.  Within 6 months the tyres were got damaged with air and the edges were also totally damaged.  Upon which, he approached the opposite party No.1 and kept the damaged tyres with it.  Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 had given a reply on 24-06-2016 along with the letter addressed by the opposite party No.2 by stating that after careful examination, they found that the product has failed due to rim digging but not due to manufacturing defect and as such not covered under warranty, due to which, the complainant suffered a lot and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay cost of two tyres @ Rs.14,500/- and Rs.5,000/- towards damages and costs.      

3.      In support of his case the complainant filed affidavit and also filed some documents, those were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-4.

4.      After receipt of notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have appeared and filed separate counters.   In its counter, the opposite party No.2 submitted that it is engaging in the business of manufacturing and marketing of tyres, tubes and flaps and also sells the products to the dealers / original equipment manufacturers on a principal to principal basis.  The tyres and tubes are returned to it through its dealers / original equipment manufacturers or directly to it’s sales officers by the consumers.  Those are examined by it’s technical person to determine as to whether the claim item deserves verdict of adjustment or rejection.  The opposite partyNo.2 further submitted that they have received two tyres vide it’s numbers R12015 and R11615 through claim receipt No.HYDC48591C and HYDC48592C dated 24-06-2016.  After examination, its technical service engineer found that the tyres suffered damage due to rim digging while in service, caused due to edge of rim causing damage to the tyres in motion and also due to improper or under inflation of tyre.  The findings of technical service engineer was communicated to the opposite party No.1 on 24-06-2016.  The opposite party No.2 also contended that several factors are influenced to the performance of a tyre, such as 1) Mechanical condition or irregularities of the vehicle 2) proper maintenance of tyres 3) Road conditions 4) Driving habits 5) Speed 6) Nature of terrain 7) Seasonal effect 8) Position of tyre on the vehicle 9) Inflation / pressure and external object, which contact the tyre and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs as there is no manufacturing defect in the tyres in dispute.   

5.      The opposite party No.1 filed its separate counter by stating that after receipt of claim form from the complainant, sent the tyres to the opposite party No.2 for verification without any delay and also intimated the claim report details to the complainant immediately after receipt of the same from the opposite party No.2.  The complainant had received only report but not the damaged tyres sent back by the opposite party No.2.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on its part. 

6.      The opposite parties No.2 filed a memo by stating that to treat the contents of its counter as written arguments.

7.      In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-       

According to the aforesaid averments, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased two 700R15 Ceat Mileage Tyres from the opposite party No.1 for Rs.7,300/- and Rs.7,200/- vide receipts No.6108 and 6123 dated 29-08-2015 and 01-09-2015 respectively.  Within the period of warranty, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 with a complaint that the edges of the tyres got damaged and also got air, so that, handed over the tyres to the opposite party No.1 by seeking replacement with new one. Thereupon, the opposite party No.1 sent the tyres to the opposite party No.2 for verification.  It is the contention of the opposite party No.2 that the tyres in dispute were suffered damage due to rim digging but not due to manufacturing defect, which was revealed through the investigation by their technical Service Engineer and basing on the said report, rejected the claim of the complainant but failed to file the verification report, which is relied by it in rejection of claim.  In case of defect arose within the period of warranty, it is the bounded duty of the manufacturer to replace the product with new one.  Once the tyres in dispute were handed over at their branch, the onus will shifts on the opposite party No.2, being the manufacturer, produce the tyres by using modern technology.  The consumers cannot easily send the tyres for analysis test to the proper laboratory.  In case of any other damage as averred by the opposite party No.2, it ought to have take proper steps to prove it’s contentions.  It is a fact that the opposite party No.2 failed to file the verification report.  Mere contentions are not sustainable without filing any documentary proof, so, we cannot consider the matter in its favour.  In view of the above circumstances the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant by holding that it is the duty of the opposite party No.2 to replace the defective tyres with new one as the defect arose within the period of warranty.        

8.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party No.2 to replace the defective tyres with new ones or to refund the cost of two tyres to the complainant and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards damages and costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complaint against opposite party No.1 is dismissed.

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 8^th day of September, 2017.

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.