Kerala

Idukki

CC/15/249

Mr.N K George - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Eby Thomas

30 Jun 2020

ORDER

 

 

DATE OF FILING :19/08/15

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of June 2020

Present :

SMT.ASAMOL P. PRESIDENT IN CHARGE

SRI.AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.249/2015

Between

Complainant : N.K.George, S/o Kurian,

Nedumaruthamchalil x/422(6/53),

Vannappuram P.O., Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: Joby George)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Gateway Building,

Appolo Bluuder, Mumbai – 400 039,

Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director.

(By Adv.Babichen V.George)

2 . The Manager,

T.V.Sundram Iyengar Sons Ltd.,

Nattokom P.O., Kottayam.

3 . The Manager,

T.V.Sundram Iyengar Sons Ltd.,

Vengalloor P.O., Thodupuzha.

(Op2 and Op3 by Adv.Shiji Joseph)

4 . Ceat Ltd., No.39/3B,

Chittoor Road, Opposite Krishna Hospital,

Ernakulam.

5 . Head Quarters Ceat Limited,

RPG House, 463, Dr.Annie Besant Road,

Worli, Mumbai – 400 030.

(Op4 and Op5 By Adv: Tom Mathew)

 

 

 

(Cont....2)

 

 

-2-

O R D E R

 

SMT. ASAMOL P. (PRESIDENT -IN -CHARGE)

 

Statement of facts of the case as follows,

 

The complainant had purchased a Mahindra Jeep manufactured by the first opposite party. The second opposite party is the dealer and the third opposite party is the manager of its showroom at Vengalloor, Thodupuzha. On 18/06/2014, the first service was done on completion of 5158 Km and on 05/11/2014, the second service was done on completion of 10,189 Km. At that time, the complainant informed about the tyre defects such as missing chunks and bruises to the second opposite party. But the opposite party did not respond to the requests of the complainant. Complainant understood that the tyre used for the vehicle are only second quality tyres in the name of Ziat Company.

 

Subsequently, the first opposite party offered warranty support up to Rs.8,100/- out of the cost of the tyres Rs.23,000/- and the complainant is required to pay the balance of Rs.14,500/- for four tyres. Hence the complainant sent lawyer notice to opposite parties. They received the notice and has sent reply to the counsel of the complainant. But the opposite parties did not compensate or settle the matter. It is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence they are liable. The complainant claims the following reliefs.

 

1. Direct the opposite parties to replace the tyres or to pay Rs.23,000/- to the complainant.

2. Direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost of the case to the complainant.

    

Notice served to the opposite parties from the Forum. Opposite parties appeared and have filed written version.

 

Later, the fourth and fifth opposite parties are added in the party array as per the petition filed by the complainant. They also appeared and have filed written version.

(Cont....3)

-3-

From the version of the first opposite party, it is submitted that this complaint is false and it is not maintainable. The first opposite party is a duly incorporated company under the provisions of Companies Act, 1913. There was no problem with the vehicle at the time of delivery. The complainant had properly inspected and satisfied the vehicle before the delivery. After purchase, the vehicle reported for the first free service on 17/06/2014 at 5,158 Kms. At the time, scheduled service and standard cheeks were done and neither any complaint on tyres was reported by the complainant nor observed by the workshop. Subsequently the vehicle reported on or around 05/11/2014 at 10,189 Kms for the second free service. No issue in the tyres was raised by the complainant later, the complainant reported the complaint of the tyres of the vehicle on or around 01/12/2014 at 10,802 Kms. The workshop has forwarded the complaint to the manufacturer of the tyres, Ceat Tyres Ltd., as per the warranty policy. Ceat Tyres Ltd rejected the claim due to the reason of maintenance failure viz maintaining excess pressure in the tyres, hence this did not come under the preview of the warranty given by Ceat Tyres Ltd. Further, the second opposite party has also conducting investigation of the tyres wherein tyre pressures were found to be 40 PSI in front LHS, rear LHS & RHS and 25 PSI in front RHS which was in contravention of the recommended pressure of 35 PSI in front 36 PSI in the rear tyres. It is submitted that despite intimating about the rejection of the warranty of the tyres by Ceat India Ltd., the complainant was adamant and requested the second opposite party to replace the tyres free of costs. The second opposite party took up the matter as a gesture of goodwill, decided to bear Rs.8,700/- out of Rs.23,200/- being the total costs of tyres. It was informed to the complainant through e mail dated 08/12/2014.

 

From the version of the second and third opposite parties, the tyres in disputes are manufactured by the Ceat Ltd Company. The complainant has no specific grievances against the second and third opposite parties. The complainant has no specifically pleaded or produced any documents, showing deficiency in service or unfair trade practices on the part of the second and third opposite parties. The third opposite party did the first and second services. On the first service there were no complaint regarding, the tyres. When the tyre pressure was checked it was found that out of 4 tyres except the front right tyre all the other 3 tyres were highly inflated with air by the complainant himself.

(Cont....4)

-4-

Instead of filing with 26 pounds air, the complainant has filled 40 pounds of air in the 3 tyres of the vehicle except the front right tyre. In the front right tyre 25 pounds of air was filled. Highly excessive tyre inflation than the amount of air recommended by the manufacturer is one of the reason for the uneven tyre weer and teer. The normal mileages to the tyres are 10,000 Kms. The complainant's vehicle had already done 10,802 Kms when the complainant first reported the complaint to the opposite parties.

 

From the version of the fourth and fifth opposite parties stated that the tyres alleged to have failed were not produced before or presented to this opposite parties for inspection and therefore, this opposite parties has not been given an opportunity to examine the tyres and give its disposition to the cause of failure. This opposite parties is engaged in the manufacturer and sale of tyres, tubes and flaps and sells the same to the dealers/ original equipment manufactures on a principle to principle basis under the terms and conditions of sale as mentioned on the reverse of the invoice. The terms and conditions stipulate that this opposite parties gives no guarantee or warranty whatsoever. This opposite parties is not aware of the subsequent sales made by its dealers/original equipment manufacturers, as there is no privity between this opposite parties and the customers of the dealer/original equipment manufacturers. The claim procedure and practices of this opposite parties specifically provide that any tyres/ tubes under claim are submitted to the dealer/OE manufactures/ the company at its sales offices for inspection. On the receipt of tyres or tubes under claim, this opposite parties issues a claim receipt evidencing receipt of tyres/ tubes. Subsequently the item under complaint is examined by the technical service engineer of this opposite party and its disposition is communicated to the consumer with a copy of the inspection report. The aforesaid claim procedure followed by this opposite parties would clearly demonstrate that this opposite parties ensures that each and every item is properly. Scrutinized by this opposite parties technical personal to determine as to whether the claim item deserves verdict of adjustment or rejection. This opposite parties gives no guarantee or warranty in respect of products manufactured or sold by them. This opposite parties has received one tyre of size 6.00-16 GR 84 TT 8- bearing Sl No. No714 from M/s T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons and claim receipt No.ERNC 94942 dated 02/12/2014 was issued. Thereafter

(Cont....5)

-5-

the technical service personnel of this opposite parties on 02/12/2014 inspected the said tyre had failure due to “Severe uneven wear”. It is happened an account of careless use of the tyre by the complainant. It is not a manufacturing defect. The aforesaid findings of the Technical Service Personnel of this opposite parties was duly communicated to M/s T.V.S. & Sons vide letter No.001889 dated 02/12/2014.

 

The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

The complainant adduced evidence by way of proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1, Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 were marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of RC book, Ext.P2 is the letter dated 08/12/2014 through e mail, Ext.P3(s) is the copy of lawyer notice and A/D card, Ext.P4 is the reply notice from the counsel of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

 

The fourth and fifth opposite parties have filed proof affidavit. Ext.R1 was marked. Ext.R1 is the power of attorney of fourth and fifth opposite parties. Power of attorney holder was examined as DW1.

 

The first opposite party has produced 2 documents. Ext.R2 is the warranty conditions, Ext.R3(s) is SCR details from Mahindra Technical information system and photographs of the tyres which were marked as Ext.R2 and Ext.R3(s) respectively. Later, the first opposite party produced Ext.R4(s) documents. Ext.R4(s) is Diagonal Ply and maintenance procedure which was marked as Ext.R4(s).

 

We have heard the learned counsels for both parties and gone through the records.

 

The Point:- We are of the considered view that the complainant had purchased the vehicle manufactured by the first opposite party from the second opposite party as a dealer of the first opposite party on 04/04/2014. We considered that the complainant had serviced the vehicle in time to time because there was no

(Cont....6)

-6-

dispute about the period of servicing arose from the part of opposite parties. On 26/11/2014 one Joice George sent a complaint letter about the defect of the tyres of the vehicle through e mail to the first opposite party's customer care center (Ext.P2 was marked). The complainant has deposed in his examination that Joice George is son of him. Opposite parties were not denied the Ext.P2 document. As per the Ext.P2, the first opposite party had approved as a warranty support of Rs.8,700/- out of the total cost of the tyres Rs.23,200/-. They said in Ext.P2 letter, they had noticed that the tyres have worn out due to the excess tyre pressure and warranty is being supported as a special case. Ext.R2 is standard warranty conditions produced from the first opposite party. As per this Ext.R2, warranty does not apply to the proprietary items such as tyres, battery etc. These proprietary items are covered by the respective manufactures's warranty. The decision of the proprietary manufacturer is final and binding to all.

 

The fourth and fifth opposite parties are the manufacturer of the alleged tyres. As per the chain procedure of the fourth and fifth opposite parties, they have received one tyre from M/s T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons and claim receipt No.ERNC 94942 dated 02/12/2014 was issued. Thereafter the technical service personal of this opposite parties inspected the said tyre and reported that the tyre had failure due to “Severe Uneven Wear”. The fourth and fifth opposite parties did not receive other 3 tyres.

 

DW1 has deposed in his cross examination that they have received the information about the complaint of tyres from the first opposite party. He also deposed that “04/04/2014 ലും 5/11/2014 ലും service centre ൽ നിന്നും ടയർ തേയ്മാനം ഉണ്ടെന്ന് നിങ്ങളെ അറിയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട് (Q) ശരിയാണ് (A)” Further he deposed that, ' as per the complaint from service centre, the fourth opposite party has inspected the tyre on 02/12/2014 and its report sent to the second and third opposite parties but this report not produced before the Forum.

 

Further, we are regarding that the complainant had serviced this vehicle at proper time. At the time, the authorized centers did not inform about doing wheel alignment and air pressure checking of this vehicle to the complainant. It is the duty of the second and third opposite parties to communicate the customer

(Cont....7)

-7-

that such types informations about the vehicle. As a dealer, they have to liable that proper servicing and solving the complaints within the warranty period.

 

It is the duty of the first opposite party to resolve the complaints of the customers properly. But we don't satisfy that the first opposite party has took any initiation to resolve the complaints of the vehicle of the complainant. However, as per the Ext.P2, the first opposite party was ready to compensate the amount of Rs.8,700/- out of total cost of the 4 tyres Rs.23,200/-. It is the indirect admission on the part of this opposite parties that these tyres were in defects, but the first opposite party was tried to hide these defects, instead, they reported that 'as a good will, they supported such amount as a special warranty. The first opposite party submitted that they have informed the complaints about the vehicle of the complainant to fourth and fifth opposite parties. But this fourth and fifth opposite parties reported that they received only 1 tyre and service personal inspected this tyre and reported it had failure due to “Severe Uneven Wear”. This findings was duly communicated to T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons. But this inspection report was not produced before the Forum by any of these opposite parties. It was not reported about other 3 tyres by the opposite parties. Therefore, we have understood that all opposite parties were irresponsible to resolve the complaints of their customer. We are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties. Hence, they are liable.

 

In the view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs.23,000/- as the cost of 4 tyres to the complainant and the second and third opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and the fourth and fifth opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of this case to the complainant, failing which this amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realization.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June, 2020.

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., PRESIDENT -IN -CHARGE

Sd/-

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

(Cont....8)

-8-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - N.K.George

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - P.G.Sahadevan

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 -The copy of RC book

Ext.P2 -The letter dated 08/12/2014 through e mail

Ext.P3(s) -The copy of lawyer notice and A/D card

Ext.P4 - The reply notice from the counsel of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - The power of attorney of fourth and fifth opposite parties

Ext.R2 - The warranty conditions

Ext.R3(s) - SCR details from Mahindra Technical information system and

photographs of the tyres

Ext.R4(s) -Diagonal Ply and maintenance procedure

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT