This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of Sri Mamidi Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri Y. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3, and the opposite party No.1 appeared in person; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(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 stated in the complaint are that the complainant purchased two rear truck tyres for his tractor by paying Rs.33,000/- to the opposite party no.1 vide bill No.5257, dt. 17-08-2013 with one year warranty.  Within two months, one of the tyre was cracked i.e. on 04-10-2013, after unloading the material from the tractor, the complainant noticed that the left side truck (Tractor) tyre was cracked at two to three places.  Immediately, brought the same to the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 referred the damaged tyre to the opposite party No.2.  The service person of opposite party No.2 verified the tyre and opined that the tyre was damaged due to the negligency of complainant.  The complainant requested the opposite parties 1&2 to replace the damaged tyre with new one as the same was cracked within 2 months of purchase, but to avoid their liability, the opposite party No.1 had given an inspection report dated. 07-10-2013, due to which, the vehicle was kept idle and suffered loss of Rs.1,00,000/-.  Vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, issued legal notice on 29-10-2013.  Though, there is no response from the opposite parties, therefore, filed the present complaint by praying to direct the opposite parties to replace the damaged tyre with new one and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony and costs.  

3.       Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed the following documents, those were marked as Exhibits A1 to A6.

Ex.A1:-Bill dt.17-08-2013 for Rs.33,300/-.

Ex.A2:-Carbon copy of claim forwarding docket, dt. 05-10-2013.

Ex.A3:-Inspection Report – Rejection advise, dt.07-10-2013.

Ex.A4:-Photographs of the damaged tyre (5 No’s) along with C.D.

Ex.A5:-Office copy of legal notice, dt. 29-10-2013 with postal acknowledgments.

Ex.A6:-Reply notice, dt. 21-11-2013.

4.       On being noticed, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter. 

5.       In their written version, the opposite parties 2 and 3 denied all the averments of the complaint by submitting that they neither given any warranty nor authorized any person to give any warranty, the alleged damaged was caused due to external damage /  scoring, caused due to sudden impact with some sharp object when the vehicle was on motion.  After conducting detailed examination, they arrived at a conclusion that the tyre in dispute was free from manufacturing defect.  The opposite parties are not liable if it is damaged due to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance and accidental.  Further it is also mentioned that the opposite parties are not liable for consequential loss or indirect loss.  The life / performance of a tyre depends upon various factors such as air pressure, driving habits, road conditions, load carried by vehicle, irregularities of vehicle, proper maintenance of tyres, speed, nature of ground level, inflation / pressure and the external object, which contact the tyre while in motion etc,. therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs and also prayed to direct the complainant to take steps to send the alleged tyre to the laboratory test under section 13(1)C of C.P. Act.

6.       On behalf of opposite parties the following documents were marked as exhibits B1 to B4.

Ex.B1:- Photocopy of Inspection Report, dt. 07-10-2013 (same was marked on behalf of complainant as Exhibit A3).

Ex.B2:- Photocopy of C.F.D. Form, dt. 05-10-2013 (same was marked on behalf of complainant as Exhibit A2).

Ex.B3:- Photocopy of letter dt. 07-10-2013, addressed by the Op.No.2 to the opposite party No.1.

Ex.B4:- Photocopy of Reply notice, dt. 21-11-2013 (same was marked on behalf of complainant as Exhibit A6).

7.       During the proceedings the complainant filed a petition for appointment of advocate / commissioner to verify the damaged tyre and find out cause of damage with the help of technical expert.  But the complainant failed to choose the details of the technical expert till the matter was posted for orders, therefore, the petition was closed.              

8.       In view of the above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,

          Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief

                    as prayed for?

Point:-                  

9.       According to the above contentions, it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased two truck tyres on 17-08-2013 from opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.33,300/-.  On 04-10-2013 i.e. after 45 days of its purchase, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 with a complaint that the tyre, manufactured by the opposite party No.3 had cracked,  the same was verified by the technical service person of opposite party No.2 and issued an inspection report dt. 07-10-2013, marked under exhibit B1 by denying their liability, stated that the alleged damage was caused due to sudden impact with sharp object, not due to any manufacturing defect.  Having perused the material on record, we have observed that within 2 months of purchase, the tyre was cracked, therefore, the plea taken by the opposite parties that the tyre was damaged as a result of external damage /  scoring due to sudden impact with sharp object is baseless.  Moreover, the report of a mere technical person cannot authenticated until and unless he had required qualifications in that field and as such the plea taken by the opposite parties 2&3 cannot sustainable, in this regard we relied upon the judgment of SCDRC, Haryana in Apollo Tyres Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Farukh Khan & Anr., decided on 07-05-2014.  In view of the above circumstances, there is no necessacity to go for technical analysis under section 13(1)C of C.P. Act. and as such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. 

10.     In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to replace the defective tyre with new one and to pay Rs.1,000/-        towards damages and costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

           Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this the 12^th day of February, 2015.                                                      

                     FAC President              Member

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

FAC President               Member

District Consumer Forum, Khammam.