CC No.613.2015

Filed on 01.04.2015

Disposed on 18.05.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF MAY 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.613/2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

PRESENT:

    Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

            PRESIDENT

                 Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                          MEMBER

                                            V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 01.04.2015 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the tyre, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards loss and other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:-

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that the Complainant is a social workers and writer and also a Politician.  The Complainant had purchased a Maruthi Swift Desire VDI Car on 25.11.2014 from the Show Room Viz., Garuda Auto Craft Private Limited situated in Sankey Road, Bangalore.  The said car was fitted with MRF Tyres, manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1.    The said vehicle was hypothecated to Vijaya Bank, Sanjaynagar Branch, Bangalore.  On 15.12.2015, the Complainant was travelling form Bangalore to Chickmagalore, to attend felicitation programme, organized by her supporters.  The said vehicle was driven by its driver carefully, on Hassan to Belur State Highway on 15.12.2014, by the time, the vehicle was just ran 800 Kms. only. While driving the said vehicle, the Complainant driver noticed front left side tyre of the vehicle got burst and the said vehicle met with a small accident.  The Complainant and the driver, escaped with minor injuries.  The said road from Hassan to Bangalore is the State High way and the said road was completely tarred and is in a good condition.  There was no pot holes or other things on the road.   The said vehicle was driven by its driver cautiously with reasonable/moderate speed.  After the accident, the Complainant got down from her vehicle and inspected the tyre of the vehicle.  The tyre which has been burst because the inferior quality of materials used at the time of manufacturing by the manufacturer.  The Complainant approached the Maruthi Show Room i.e., Garuda Auto Craft Private Limited, situated in Sankey Road, Bangalore with the Complainant.  The said Car dealer intimated the Complainant that the said vehicle was not having any manufacturing defect, it is only the defect noticed in the tyre.  The Complainant was directed i.e, Garuda Auto Craft Private Limited, to approach MRF Tyre Company, Bangalore.  As per the advice given by the Car Dealer, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for replacement of the damaged tyre. On 20.12.2014 and requested the Company to replace the damaged tyre manufacturing by the Company.  The Company official inspected the damaged tyre and intimated the Complainant that the said damage was due to the impact of sharp objects.  The Complainant is not liable to compensate the damaged tyre.  The Opposite Party also intimated the Complainant that the said damage is not due to the manufacturing defect.  Hence, the Opposite Party is not liable to replace the damaged tyre.  The said vehicle is only 20 days old, as on the date of the accident, due to tyre burst, the said tyres are tubeless tures and the same is manufactured by the Opposite Party.  The said tyre was not came in contact with any sharp objects.  The said car tyre got burst due to the bad quality of the tyre, supplied by the Opposite Party.  Hence this complaint.

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Party No.1 put their appearance through their counsel and filed their Version.  In his version pleaded that the complaint is false, frivolous vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The Complainant had suppressed, distorted and concealed vital and material facts.  The Complainant has made only a vague allegation and has not even mentioned serial number of the tyre/tube alleged to have been damaged.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The complaint is not maintainable since the defective tyre has not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the Complainant as is required under Sec.13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.   This Opposite Party cannot be held liable unless there is manufacturing defect in the tyre i.e., due to usage of defective material.  The Opposite Party No.1 denied that the Complainant had purchased a Maruti Swift Desire VDI Car (fitted with MRF tyres) on 25.11.2014 from the show-room of the Opposite Party No.2.  The tyre of size 165/80R14 ZV2K TL bearing Serial No.8AN014A2714 was received for examination from the Complainant on 20.12.2014.  Soon after the receipt of the said tyre, it was thoroughly inspected by this Opposite Party’s Technical Service Personnel Mr.Sathish D.S.  His examination revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to an External cut inflicted by some sharp object while the vehicle was in motion.  This is not due to any manufacturing defect of the tyre.  The above conclusion was reached only after subjecting the said tyre to a thorough and detailed examination.   The Opposite Party manufactures the largest range of tyres in India and enjoys the highest band preference for superior quality, appearance and long life.  The tyre mentioned in the complaint was damaged due to the reasons stated above.  The tyre manufactured by us adheres to strict standard of quality and is free from any manufacturing defect.  Tyre being a rubber product can be damaged for any reason other than manufacturing defect.  The life of a tyre depends on many factors like Air Pressure, Driving Habits, Road Conditions, Load carried by the vehicle, mechanical condition or irregularities of the vehicle, proper maintenance of the tyres, speed, nature of the terrain i.e., level ground, hilly and /or winding roads, the season of the year when the tyre was used, position of the tyre on the vehicle, inflation/pressure and the external object with which the tyre may come in contact while in motion, etc.  The Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged in the complaint.  The tyre was damaged for the above stated reasons and not because of manufacturing defect.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint against Opposite Party No.1.
4. The Opposite Party No.2 also filed his version.  In his version pleaded that there is no deficiency of any sort on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party is not a necessary party to the above complaint and the above complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties.   The complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts. The Complainant has foisted false allegations against the 2^nd Opposite Party without proper and reasonable grounds. The Complainant is trying to establish claim against the Opposite Parties on the basis of alleged breach of contract and in view of he said contentions of the Complainant, this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter, claiming on the basis of alleged breach of contracts.  The tyres are manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party and the 1^st Opposite Party is liable to answer with regard to any manufacturing defects and the 2^nd Opposite Party has no role in the matter. Garuda Auto Craft Private Limited, is an Authorized Dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Limited, dealing in sales and service of car manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Limited and Complainant had purchased Maruti Swift Desire VDI car bearing Registration No:KA-04 MP 3383 from 2^nd Opposite Party.  The 2^nd Opposite Party is not aware of the allegations with regard to the travel to Chickmagalore and on Hassan to Belur State Highway on 15.12.2014, when the vehicle had run 800 Kms, the front left side tyre of the vehicle got burst and the said vehicle met with a small accident.  The Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party on 19.12.2014, with the allegation of burst of the front left side tyre due to inferior quality of material.  The 2^nd Opposite Party is an Authorized Dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Limited and the alleged tyres is manufactured by 1^st Opposite Party and the 1^st Opposite Party is liable to answer with regard to any manufacturing defects, subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the 1^st Opposite Party and therefore request to approach the 1^st Opposite Party for appropriate relief.  The 2^nd Opposite Party has excellent and trained executives, technical staff and public relation officer, who are well versed and experienced with handling of the clients.  Whenever the customer or the representatives visit, they are honorably treated and all their complaints are attended and advise them properly.   As per the instructions of 2^nd Opposite Party has approached the 1^st Opposite Party on 20.12.2014 and the Company officials of the 1^st Opposite Party have inspected the damaged tyre and has given the following inspection report, rejecting the claim of the Complainant.  It is clear from the inspection report dt.20.12.2014 of the 1^st Opposite Party that there is no manufacturing defect and accordingly the Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as claimed in the complaint. The alleged damage has occurred only due to the negligent driving and not following the instructions given in the owner’s manual.  There is no negligence or deficiency of any sort on the part of Garuda Auto Craft Private Limited and the Complainant has not suffered any loss.  The Complainant is not entitled for any relief, much less the relief as claimed by the Complainant.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint against Opposite Party No.2.

5. The Complainant, Sri.B.T.Lalitha Naik has been filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, the affidavit of Sri.Ravi Shivayogayya Pujar has been filed.  On behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, the affidavit of Sri.A.C.Krishan Raju has been filed.   Heard the arguments of both parties.

6.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proves the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled ?

7.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Affirmative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:- As looking into the averments made in the complaint and the version filed by the Opposite Party No.2, it is not in dispute that the Complainant had purchased a Maruthi Swift Desire VDI Car from Opposite Party No.2 on 25.11.2014 and the said car was fitted with MRF Tyres, manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1.  

9. It is further case of the Complainant that the Complainant car was driven by its driver carefully, on Hassan to Belur State Highway on 15.12.2014, by the time, the vehicle was just ran 800 Kms. only.   While driving the said vehicle, the Complainant driver noticed front left side tyre of the vehicle got burst and the said vehicle met with a small accident.  The Complainant and the driver, escaped with minor injuries.  The said road from Hassan to Belur is the State High way and the said road was completely tarred and is in a good condition.  There was no pot holes or other things on the road.  The said vehicle was driven by its driver cautiously with reasonable/moderate speed.  After the accident, the Complainant got down from her vehicle and inspected the tyre of the vehicle.  The tyre which has been burst because the inferior quality of materials used at the time of manufacturing by the manufacturer.  The Complainant approached the Maruthi Show Room i.e., Garuda Auto Craft Private Limited, situated in Sankey Road, Bangalore with the Complainant.  The said Car Dealer intimated the Complainant that the said vehicle was not having any manufacturing defect, it is only the defect noticed in the tyre.  The Complainant was directed to approach MRF Tyre Company, Bangalore.  As per the direction given by the Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant approached the MRF Tyre Company located in Infantry Road Bangalore on 20.12.2014 and requested the Company to replace the damaged tyre manufacturing by the Opposite Party No.1 Company.  The Opposite Party No.1 Company official inspected the damaged tyre and intimated the Complainant that the said damage was due to the impact of sharp objects.  The Complainant is not liable to compensate the damaged tyre.  The said damage is not due to the manufacturing defect.  In order to substantiate this fact, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced the Photographs.  As looking into the Photographs, it clearly reveals that there is a defect in the alleged left front wheel tyre and also produced the Inspection Report and Rejection Advice issued by the Technical Service Person of Opposite Party No.1 which is dt.20.12.2014.  Even by looking into this Inspection Report-Rejection Advice, it is very clear that the Opposite Party No.1 Technical Service Person inspected the alleged defective tyre on 20.12.2014 and it is clear from this Inspection Report that the damaged and defect in the front left wheel tyre.  But according to the Opposite Party No.1 Technical Service Person is, the damaged as a result of External impact with sharp object.  From this evidence also it is very clear that the alleged left front wheel was damaged and defective one.  In support of the defence of the Opposite Party No.1 that the damage was due to impact with sharp object, except the interested version of the Opposite Party No.1 Sri.Ravi Shivayogayya Pujar, Sales and Technical Engineer.  They have not placed any other evidence.  If really the said damage caused to the alleged left front tyre is due to impact with sharp object.  In support of their defence, the Opposite Party No.1 have to examine the Technical Service Person, who inspected the tyre but the Opposite Party No.1 did not chose to examine any such witness, thereby it is not proper to accept the defence taken by the Opposite Party No.1.  On the other hand from the evidence placed by the Complainant, it is very clear that the alleged left front wheel tyre was damaged and this also indicates vehicle was purchased on 25.11.2014 and the alleged defect tyre is noticed by the Complainant on 15.12.2014 i.e., within 20 days and also the alleged vehicle as run only 800 Kms.   Thereby from this evidence, it is crystal clear that there is a manufactured defect in the alleged left front wheel tyre the Complainant after noticing the defect found in the tyre requested for replacement of the defective tyre with new one with Opposite Party No.1 but the Opposite Party No.1 refused and rejected this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, but there is no allegation or unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party No.2.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2.  On the other hand, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.  Hence, this point is held in accordingly.

10. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:-

ORDER

The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is dismissed.

The complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service by the Opposite party No.1.

The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to replace the defective tyre within 15 days from the date of receipt of defective tyre from the Complainant. 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 18^th day of May 2017)

         MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.B.T.Lalitha Naik, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Photographs and Inspection Reprot –Rejection Advice

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

1. Sri.Ravi Shivayogayya Pujar, the Technical Engineer of the Opposite Party No.1.
2. Sri.A.C.Krishna Raju, the Director of the Opposite Party No.2.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

     MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT