D.O.F:28/09/2016
D.O.O:30/07/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.245/2016
Dated this, the 30th day of July 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
M.H. Abdul Kader
S/o Mammunhi
Masthikundu House, Edneer Post : Complainant
Kasaragod Taluk
And
- The Manager
K.V.R. Maruthi Cars Ltd
Anangoor, Vidyanagar Post
Kasaragod
(Adv: Shrikanta shetty)
- The Manager : Opposite Parties
MRF United
Building No. 5/367
HIJKL, Keeriyad
Near: Kolathiripally
Chirackkal, Kannur
(Adv: Madhavan Malankad)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The facts of the case in brief.
The complainant purchased a Maruthi Breeza car from Opposite Party No.1 on 19/05/2016. Vehicle is purchased in the name of his son Mohammed Riyas for his personal use. While in use it is found both left side tyres damaged. On information Opposite Party No.1 assured replacement. But Opposite Party did not replace the tyres. There is manufacturing defect to the vehicle. He paid Rs 13,000/- towards price of the tyres. The Opposite Party No.1 removed both tyres and taken to showroom of Opposite Party No.1. but Opposite Party did not replace the tyres. The complainant sought replacement of tyres by Opposite Parties or to pay cost of the same with interest and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of the litigation.
2. The Opposite Party No.1 filed their written version. Purchase of tyres is admitted. It was sent to Opposite Party No.2 being the manufacturer. Tyres technician inspected the tyre. Request shows that tyre is burst due to external damage and not due to manufacturing defect. There is no deficiency in service thus not liable to any reliefs.
3. The Opposite Party No.2 filed their written version Opposite Party No.2 says that tyre is inspected and on inspection it is found that tyres does not suffer from manufacturing defect. On observation it was found external sharp object impact there by damage to the rim and thus damage is not covered by warranty. It is informed to Opposite Party No.1 to collect the tyres from tyre station Kasaragod. There is no unfair trade practice.
4. The Complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1. Ext A1 to A5 documents marked from his side. Ext A1 and A2 are the copy of the letters. Sent by complainant to Opposite Party No.1. Ext A3 is inspection report, Ext A4 is the bill for payment of price of vehicle, Ext A5 is the authorization sanction letter to complainant by his son to file complaint.
5. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 filed proof affidavit. Opposite Party No.2 examined as Dw1, Opposite Party No.1 cross examined as Dw2. Ext B1 to B3 documents marked from his side. Ext B1 is the letter by Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No.2, Ext B2 is the technical report, and Ext B3 is the warranty card.
6. So in view of the dispute raised by parties, following points raised for consideration
a) Whether there is any manufacturing defect to tyres manufactured by Opposite Party No.2, whether Opposite Parties liable to replace the tyres?
b) Whether there is any deficiency in service from Opposite Parties and whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
7. All issues are discussed together for convenience. From the documents and evidence made available it is proved that tyres of the vehicle burst while on move and it is damaged, not possible for use any more. It is also proved that vehicle has run only about little more than 1000 kilometers, with the new tyre where as normal life of a new tyre is 25,000 above kilometers. It is also proved that tyre is covered by warranty but Opposite Party No.2 relies upon exclusion clause contending that damage is caused by hitting of tyre with the sharp object and not due to any manufacturing defect. It is also proved that tyre was kept with Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 sent it to Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 in its turn send back to Opposite Party No.1 with inspection report. Disputed tyre is manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 and supplied through dealer network namely Opposite Party No.1.
8. The definite case of complainant is that tyre burst while driving. Opposite Party No.2 set up case of road hazard thus impact of hitting on a sharp object. Complainant is not expected to prove negative. It is the duty of Opposite Party No.2 to prove that tyre damage is caused by road hazard. The Opposite Party No.2 relies upon inspection report submitted by its qualified engineer. But report is not proved by examining the concerned engineer. No explanation for not examining the expert who submitted the report. He is the best and competent witness. Furthermore Dw1 says he is not able to say how damage is caused to the tyre. Dw1 for Opposite Party No.2 has no case or reason how damage is caused in his evidence. Further tyre is kept with Opposite Party No.1 only. It is true complainant did not take steps to get an expert opinion but tyres is kept with Opposite Party No:1 and inspected and hence case of complainant is accepted.
9. Thus commission finds that tyres burst while vehicle is on move. Even before usual tyre life it is burst, Opposite Party No.2 did not prove their own inspection report by examining the engineer who conducted inspection, so claim of complainant for tyre replacement with new is found to be genuine. Opposite Party No.1 being the dealer and Opposite Party No.2being the manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the reliefs. Thus issues are found against Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2.
10. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are under a duty to provide service and replacement at the earliest without undue delay. Thus there is deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. Thus Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. hence we hereby order and direct the Opposite Party No.2 to supply two new tyres free of cost in replacement for the burst tyres or in the alternative to pay Rs.13,000/- towards its price, and also direct Opposite Party to compensate for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice commission finds that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be reasonable compensation and also eligible for cost of the litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to supply two brand new tyres of the very same brand for his Breeza car free of cost or its value thereof namely Rs.13,000/- to complainant. Both Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 & A2- Copy of the Letters
A3- Inspection report
A4- Retail Invoice
A5- Authorisation letter.
B1- A letter Dt: 07/06/2016
B2- Inspection report – rejection advice
B3- Warranty card.
Witness Examined
Pw1- M.H.Abdulkhader
Dw1- Sreedhar.C
Dw2- Anil Kumar
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
