DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 22^nd Day  of November 2011

 

 

Present    : Smt.Seena H, President

              : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member       

               : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member         Date of filing: 25/07/2008

 

 

                                                          (C.C.No.83/2008)           

 

Vijayan T Nair,

S/o.N.Krishnankutty Nair,

“Bhavana”,

Thottekkad House,

Thenur, Parali

Palakkad – 678 616.

(Adv.N.Anoopkumar)                                     -        Complainant

 

                                                                   V/s

 

1.Sitaram Motors,

   Maruthi Service Centre,

   NH Bye Pass Road,

   Chandra Nagar (PO),

   Palakkad – 678 007.

 (Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran & Sheji Rajan)

 

2.Appollo Tyres Limited,

   27/1713, VP Marakkar Road,

   Edappilly Toll Junction,

   Edappilly, Cochin – 680 024.

 

3. The Chief General Manager,

  Maruthi Suzuki India Limited,

   Palam – Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon – 122015

  Haryana

   (Adv.V.Santharam & Manikandan M.R)                           -        Opposite parties

                       

 

O R D E R

         

          By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

 

The complainant had purchased a Maruthi Wagon R Model car for an amount of Rs.3,34,605/- on 25/8/07 from the 1^st opposite party. The car ran only  3,000 km during the period from August 2007 to May 2008 and the front tyre of the complainant’s car was found to be in a broken condition. Then the complainant informed the 1^st opposite party to the broken condition of the tyre. As per the direction of 1^st opposite party the service personnel inspected the tyre. On physical inspection it was noted by the service personnel of 1^st opposite party that the tyre was broken not due to any manufacturing defect and not replaced the broken tyre. At the time of inspection of broken tyre the front left tyre also found broken. Then the complainant demanded the 1^st opposite party to replace the two broken tyres and the opposite party rejected the replacement of broken tyres. The car was manufactured by 3^rd opposite party and issued warranty. During the period of warranty the defects of the vehicle or parts liable to be replace by the opposite parties. The complainant stated that the vehicle manufactured by 3^rd opposite party and given the vehicle along with tyre  to 2^nd opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party has not  used the tyre of 2^nd opposite party. But the 1^st opposite party had replaced the high quality tyres fitted in the car by the 3^rd opposite party with cheap quality tyres of the 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is the dealer of 3^rd opposite party. So the 3^rd opposite party also liable to pay compensation for the deficiency in service and acts of 1^st opposite party. More over it is the bounden duty of opposite parties to serve the vehicle in good condition to the complainant.   The opposite parties are liable to replace the defective tyres during warranty period even for damages caused to the tyres not due to manufacturing defect. The opposite parties have not explained as to how the tyres happened to burst even before completing 3000 kms. The opposite parties have not promptly attended the complainant when he had come up with the allegations. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective tyres and pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony. 

 

The 1^st and 3^rd opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. 

The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased a Maruthi Wagon R car from their show room. It is also true that the front tyre of the complainant’s car was found to be in a broken condition when the same was inspected by the service personnel. The 1^st opposite party stated that the tyre was broken not due to any manufacturing defect but due to the side wall scoring and the complainant was informed. The complainant insisted for the claim and 1^st opposite party had immediately preferred a claim for replacement before the Apollo Tyres Ltd. and had sent the tyre manufacturer Appollo Tyres Ltd. by bearing all the required expenditure for the same. Appollo Tyres Ltd. vide its letter dated 9/5/08 rejected the claim holding that the failure is not due to any manufacturing defect and stating about the probable causes for failure. The 1^st opposite party had intimated the complainant about the repudiation of claim. In the additional version the 1^st opposite party stated that it is not correct to state that 3^rd opposite party is not using the tyres manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. The say of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party had cheated him by replacing the high quality tyres fitted in the car by the 3^rd opposite party, with cheap quality tyres of 2^nd opposite party is denied by 1^st opposite party. There is no defect either to the car purchased by the complainant or to its spare parts and hence neither the 1^st opposite party nor the 3^rd opposite party is liable. The opposite parties are liable to replace the tyres during warranty period even for damages caused to the tyres not due to manufacturing defect is not legally correct. The 1^st opposite party has not done anything which would cause mental agony or stress and they had promptly attended the complainant when he had come with the allegations and  he was never made to visit 1^st opposite party’s show room time and again as alleged by the complainant. The allegation that the front tyres fitted to the car is defective and the opposite parties are liable to replace the front tyres are baseless and hence denied. The 1^st opposite party is not liable to pay compensation as there is no manufacturing defect. The complainant has not taken any steps to get the tyres checked by any expert. Hence the 1^st opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

The 3^rd opposite party stated that they are the manufacturer of vehicle in question stands warranty subject to certain terms and conditions as described in clause 4 of the owners manual and service booklet. The 3^rd opposite party’s obligations under warranty are specific as mentioned in clause 3 of the booklet. The alleged defect of complainant falls under clause 4 (b) of the owner’s manual and as such 3^rd opposite party is not responsible for the same. The complainant had entered independent contract with 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in respect of alleged defect and 3^rd opposite party was not privy to that contract. As admitted by the complainant himself his claim had been rejected by 2^nd opposite party. No grievance has been reported by complainant against 3^rd opposite party. The complainant failed to prove any cause of action against 3^rd opposite party or case against them. The complainant is not entitled to any relief against the 3^rd opposite party. The present complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Notice to 2^nd opposite party returned. 2^nd opposite party has not filed version and affidavit.

Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A2 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B9 marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 and 3. 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1. Matter was heard.

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 complainant entitled to ?

 

We perused relevant documents on record. 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer. The complainant stated that 3^rd opposite party is not using the tyres manufactured by 2^nd opposite party. No contradictory evidence was produced by 3^rd opposite party. The terms and conditions of warranty of tyres was not produced by opposite parties 1 and 2.  In Ext.B1 mentioned that “the failure is not due to any manufacturing defect / not covered under customer friendly claim policy. The 1^st opposite party stated that the service personnel attached to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had noted that the tyre was broken not due to any manufacturing defect but due to side wall scoring caused due to the incompetency of the complainant to drive the vehicle. In Ext.B1 the rejection letter dated 9/5/2008 dealer name and address mentioned that M/s.Tyre Complex, Palakkad, Opposite Town Railway Station.  In Ext.B1 mentioned that the manufacturer year and month : OCT 07. The complainant had purchased the car on 25/8/07. No evidence was produced by 1^st opposite party to show that Ext.B1 issued by the service personnel attached to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The complainant argued that in Ext.B1 the name and address of customer is M/s.SRI RAM MOTORS. Thereafter written the name of complainant. In Ext.A1 the complainant had purchased the Wagon R model car on 25/8/2007 from 1^st opposite party. The Ext.A2 mentioned that “The term of the warranty shall be twenty four (24) months or 40,000 kilometers (which ever occur first) from the date of delivery to the first owner”. In Ext.B1 the claim date is 9.05.2008. The defect of the tyres was found within 24 months. The 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1. The complainant filed I.A.171/11 to cross examine the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties. I.A. allowed. But the 3^rd opposite party was not present for cross examination. Also the complainant filed questionnaire to 3^rd opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party has not filed answers. The details of tyres can be answered only by 3^rd opposite party. But the 3^rd opposite party has not filed answers and not present for examination.  The 3^rd opposite party in the affidavit stated that the alleged tyre defect of the complainant falls under clause 4(b) of the warranty policy.

 In Ext.A2 4(b):- This warranty shall not apply to:  the replacement of normal wear parts including without limitation bulbs, battery tyres and tubes, spark plugs, belts, hoses, filters, wiper blades, brushes, contact point, fuses, clutch disc, brake shoes, break pads, cable and all rubber parts. In this  case the opposite parties have not replaced or repaired the defective tyres.

 Further 3^rd opposite party stated that 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of tyres who stands warranty for its products as per its own terms and conditions. But in Ext.B1 mentioned probable causes of Failure are : Fociling with broken Leafspring or Bolt overloading, Improper inflation, Overspeeding and Rough Riding etc. The 1^st and 2^nd  opposite parties have not stated the warranty period of tyres.   The 3^rd opposite party has not given the details of tyres. Moreover the opposite party 1 & 2 have not produced their dealers list. No evidence was produced by 3^rd opposite party to show that 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of tyres. Complainant filed  I.A.97/09 to sent the tyre for lab test.  The I.A. allowed. But the complainant has not taken steps to sent the tyre for lab test. The complainant argued that the details of the tyres was not given by the 3^rd opposite party and not present for cross examination. In the present case the defects of the tyres was noted within the warranty period. No evidence was produced by the opposite parties to prove that Ext.B1 was issued by the authorized service personnel. The 3^rd opposite party was not present for the examination.   The complainant stated that the 1^st opposite party had cheated him by replacing the high quality tyres fitted in the car by the 3^rd opposite party with cheap quality tyres of the 2^nd opposite party. No contradictory evidence was produced by opposite parties.  The 2^nd opposite party has not filed version and affidavit. It is a fit case for awarding compensation for deficiency in service.

 

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

 

We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only)  as compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 22^nd  day of November 2011

 

                                                                               Sd/-

Seena.H

President

 Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

   Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

 

  

Ext.A1 – Tax / vehicle invoice dated 25/8/07 (original)

Ext.A2 – Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet

 

Ext.B1 –Rejection letter issued by 2^nd opposite party

Ext.B2 – Copy of Dealership agreement

Ext.B3 – Copy of warranty policy

Ext.B4 – Copy of job card dated 4/10/07

Ext.B5 – Copy of job card dated 25/02/08

Ext.B6 – Copy of job card dated 25/08/08

Ext.B7 – Copy of job card dated 29/12/08

Ext.B8 – Copy of job card dated 25/09/09

Ext.B9 – Copy of rejection letter

 

DW1 – Gopinath S Nair

Rs.2,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.