Date of Filing:17.08.2009<br /> Date of Order: 10.05.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 10H DAY OF MAY 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1982 OF 2009 <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. N.Mahesh Kumar<br /> S/o A.Nagaraja,<br /> R/at No.6, Somashettyhalli,<br /> Chikkabanavara Post,<br /> Heasaragata Hobli,<br /> Bangalore North Taluk,<br /> Bangalore. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. The Manager, <br /> Ravindu Toyota,<br /> Ravindu Motors Pvt., Ltd.,<br /> No.25, Chord Road,<br /> Opp to Iskon Temple, <br /> Rajajinagar Industrial Suburb,<br /> Bangalore-22. <br /> <br /> 2. The Manager,<br /> Goodyear India Ltd.,<br /> Mathura Road,<br /> Faridabad-121004,<br /> Haryana Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for directing the opposite parties to replace one Tubeless tyre and for compensation. <br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant has purchased “TOYOTA INNOVA” vehichle in the month of 2008 from the opposite party No.1 Opposite party No.1 has assured Goodyear tyres are good and feasible one. But, the complainant found fault with the tyre, i.e., there is an air leakage in the tyre and the same had been brought to the notice of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 told that warranty period is not over he will get it replaced of tubeless tyre. He delivered the tyre on 25-4-2009 to the service center. Both the opposite parties have failed to give proper service to the customers, thereby their service is deficiency. The first opposite party will fail to replacement of tyre, whenever the complainant visited to the first opposite party, the first opposite party told him to come after one or two days. The first opposite party is showing fingers towards second opposite party. Even though the warranty period is not over, the opposite parties was failed to replace the tyre. Due to the unfair trade practice, the complainant suffered lot of mental agony and mental torture and inconvenience. The act of escaping from the responsibility is a deficiency in service. The complainant got issued legal notice through his counsel calling upon them to replace the tube less tyre. The complainant having fed up with the service and non cooperation of the opposite parties he is compelled to filed this complaint. <br /> 2. The opposite party No.1 & 2 have filed defense version. The opposite party No.1 submitted that he had sold brand new vehicle to the complainant. The opposite party No.1 is a dealer of Toyota made vehicles. Soon after receiving the complaint from the complainant opposite party No.1 had requested second opposite party to look into the matter. The opposite party is a customer friendly company. The opposite party No.1 had tendered all its support to the complainant to overcome the problem. The Complainant had spend some money for repair of the same and as he was not able to get the new tyre. The opposite party No.1 requested to dismiss the complaint. The opposite party No.2 in a separate defence version submitted that there is no unfair act committed by the opposite party No.2. The legal notice was replied. There was no deficiency of service committed by the opposite prty No.2. The opposite party No.2 sell tyres and tubes in the market after testing it. The opposite party No.2 submitted that he had received tyre bearing Sl.No.1408, APR from first opposite party under a claim on 3-6-2009 and the service engineer had examined the said tyre and found that there was “side wall through cut” and “punchers at two places”, which has been patched, repaired and as the said claim is not covered under warranty, hence rejected the same and intimated the same to the first opposite party. For all the reasons stated by the opposite party No.2 prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The respective parties have filed affidavit evidence. The complainant had produced some documents, i.e., spot inspection report, quality control report, receipts, invoices, copy of legal notice and postal acknowledgement and reply notice. I have gone through the pleadings, affidavit evidence and documents. Heard the arguments on both the sides. <br /> <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the following points arise for consideration:-<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? <br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complaint is entitled for relief of replacement of one tube less tyre. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is an admitted case of the parties. The complainant has purchased Toyota Innova Vehicle from the opposite party No.1 in the month of May 2008. It is also admitted fact that the said vehicle is having Goodyear tyres. The complainant found fault with one tyre and there was air leakage in the tyre. He brought the defect to the notice of opposite party No.1 and requested for replacement of one tube less tyre. The opposite party No.1 referred the matter to opposite party No.2, who is the manufacturer of the tubeless tyre. The complainant delivered the tyre to the service center of the opposite party No.1. The service engineer of the opposite party No.2 inspected the tyre and found “side wall through cut”. However, the opposite parties refused to replace one tubeless tyre as requested by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant send legal notice through his advocate and requested to replace tubeless tyre. Even after service of legal notice also the opposite parties have not taken any steps to replace the defective tyre, Therefore, the complainant has force to filed this complaint. The complainant having purchased new vehicle, the vehicle is under warranty period, it is duty and obligation of the opposite parties to sell the vehicle to the customers which shall be defect free of any kind. If a new vehicle is found to be defective, it really gives mental shock and causes inconvenience to the customers. A reputed companies like opposite parties should see that customers are satisfied with their service. Satisfaction of customers is most important in this age of competition. The customers are not depending the service providers. On the other hand the service providers are depended on the customers. As per the spot inspection report dated 7-6-2009, which has been produced by the complainant, it has been very clearly mentioned in the observation column “side wall through cut puncture two place patch repaired / puncture repaired. By the spot inspection report from the service engineer of the opposite party No.2 it is very clear that tyre “side wall through cut” and there was air leakage. Therefore, definitely the tubeless tyre having manufacturing defect therefore, it is the duty and obligation of opposite parties to replace the defective tubeless tyre. The liability of opposite party No.1&2 are jointly and several. Even though opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the tubeless tyre, opposite party No.1 who is a dealer, can not escape from his liability. Dealer is as much responsible with the manufacturer for the replacement of the defect goods or material. Therefore, in this case the opposite party No.1&2 both are responsible for replacement of tubeless tyre. The Consumer Protection Act is a Social and Benevolent Legislation intended to protect the better interest of the consumers, the complainant herein being a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, his interest and rights are required to be protected in passing orders for replacement of the tubeless tyre. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and carelessness on the part of the opposite parties. Since the complainant has not established as to how and in what manner he had suffered mental agony and inconvenience, therefore, the prayer of the complainant for grant of compensation is not considered. The ends of justice will be met in ordering the opposite parties to replace one tubeless tyre in the place of defective one. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to replace one tubeless tyre in the place of defective tubeless tyre to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> 7. The Complainant is also entitled Rs.500/- for cost of the present proceedings from the opposite parties. <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 10TH DAY OF MAY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />