DATE OF FILING : 5.10.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31^st day of March, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.210/2010

Between

Complainant : Thomas George,

Thuniyamprayil House,

Mankulam P.O.

Thalumkandam, Idukki District. And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Managing Director,

SML Motors,

SML Buildings,

Edappally, Cochin – 24,

Ernakulam District.

2. The Sales Manager,

SML Motors, Adimali Branch,

SML Buildings,

Adimali P.O.,

Idukki District.

3. The Branch Manager,

SML Motors, Adimali Branch,

SML Buildings,

Adimali P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Naiju Raveendranath)

4. The Manager,

Metro Continental Ltd.,

Near EEC Market, Nettoor,

Maradu,

Kochi, Ernakulam District.

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant purchased a passenger autorickshaw named Ape Piaggio from the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorised dealer of the opposite party at Adimali on 19.3.2010, for Rs.1,45,162/-. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle was having four new tyres made up of Continental company. Out of the four tyres, two tyres developed cracks in its edges and after running 3500 Kms, the tyres became useless. The matter was informed to the Adimali branch of the opposite party and they have received the defected tyres and told that the tyres will be replaced within 30 days. After that the complainant approached for the defectless new tyres but they told that they are not entitled to replace the same and told the complainant to take the tyres to the company directly for replacing them. There is no trade relationship with the continentat tyre company and the complainant. The complainant purchased the autorickshaw with tyres from Adimali branch of the opposite party. So this petition is filed for getting replacement of the tyres.

2. As per the written version filed by the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, the customer is having the right to chose the tyres of the vehicle from different companies, at the time of purchase of the vehicle. At the time of purchase of the vehicle and choosing the tyres of the vehicle, the warranty provided by each company is applicable to them. The opposite parties are not providing warranty to the proprietory items including the tyres of the vehicle. In the owner’s manual, in page No.21, it is clearly stated that it was also convinced by the complainant. If any manufacturing defect and any other defect while driving, the opposite parties are not liable. The customers have to approach the company directly for their remedy. The only duty of this opposite party is to help the complainant for the same. The opposite parties who are the authorised agents of the Piaggio company are liable for only those stating in the warranty manual. The manufacturing company of tyres are liable for proprietory items provided in the vehicle. So there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party.

2. The 4^th opposite party is exparte.

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

4. No oral evidence adduced by both the parties. Exts.P1 & P2 marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite party.

5. The POINT :- The complainant purchased a new Ape Piaggio Passenger autorickshaw from the Adimali branch of the 1^st opposite party. The receipt issued from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,45,612/- is marked as Ext.P1. But the tyres provided in the vehicle, at the time of purchase of the vehicle were manufactured by Metro Continental Company Ltd., and it was supplied by the 3^rd opposite party. While the complainant was plying the vehicle, after 3500 kms, two tyres became damage and cracks were developed in the edge of the tyres and so they became useless. The damaged tyres are produced by the complainant before the Forum and are marked as Ext.MO1(series). So the complainant informed the matter to the 3^rd opposite party from where the vehicle purchased and they have received the defected tyres and told that the tyres will be replaced within 30 days. After that they told that they are not having any responsibility for the same and the complainant should contact the company directly. So the complainant purchased another two tyres from MRF company and the bill dated 9.6.2010 for the same is marked as Ext.P2. So he requested for replacement of the tyres. As per 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, they are providing tyres of different companies to the consumers at the time of sale of the vehicle and it is the right of the customers to chose the tyres of the vehicle at the time of purchase. The 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are not liable for any of the defect or manufacturing defect caused to the proprietory items of the vehicle. The owner’s manual of the vehicle produced by the opposite party which is marked as Ext.R1 in which in the page No.21, it is written that “the proprietory items are warranted by their respective manufacturers” and should be claimed on them directly by the customer. PVPL will not be liable in any manner to replace them through their authorised dealers/service centres though they will provide full assistance in preparing such claims on their manufacturers. Starter motor, tyres, tubes, fuel filter, fuel injector, fuel injection pump, battery etc. are considered as proprietory items.

The opposite parties provided proprietory components warranty claim form to the complainant on 2.5.2010, but the complainant was not ready to sign the same. Ext.R2 is the proprietory components warranty claim for the same. Legal notice was issued by the complainant to the opposite parties for getting replacement of the tyres and this opposite party replied the same stating that they are not liable for the warranty for the tyres and the manufacturing company of the tyres are liable for the proprietory items. Ext.R3 is the reply notice issued by the opposite party on 24.7.2010.

As per the opposite party, they are not liable for proprietory items which include tyres of the vehicle and that matter is stated in Ext.R1 owner’s manual page No.21 of the vehicle and so they are not liable for compensating the complainant, the complainant should directly approach the 4^th opposite party who is manufactured the tyre, for getting replacement of the tyre and the matter was convinced to the complainant. Warranty details were also convinced to the complainant at the time of purchase.

So we think that at the time when he purchased the vehicle, the tyre fixed to the vehicle was made up of Metro Continental Company Ltd. The tyres were purchased along with the purchase of the vehicle and not purchased separately from the 3^rd opposite party. So the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,45,162/- as per the Ext.P1 receipt to the 3^rd opposite party for the purchase of the vehicle and no separate bill has been given for the purchase of the tyres. The opposite party produced the owner’s manual of the vehicle in which it is written that warranty of the proprietory items are not liable to the opposite party. The owner’s manual of the vehicle No.KL-6E-5303 is produced by the opposite party and the name of the customer George Mathew is also written in the same. It is produced by the 3^rd opposite party. So it is very clear that the owner’s manual was not supplied to the complainant at the time of purchase, eventhough it is written like in it. The opposite party produced the warranty claim form stating the purchase of the same for claiming from the 4^th opposite party and the complainant was not ready to sign in the same. In Ext.R2 claim form, there is no column for affixing the signature of the complainant who purchased the vehicle. There is a claim form with authorised signature column and it is signed by the 2^nd opposite party, sales manager, and his name and stamp also there. The opposite party is not liable for the defect of the tyre so that they helped the complainant to claim the amount from the 4^th opposite party. But there is no evidence to show that they have helped the complainant for getting the amount or replacement of the tyres from the 4^th opposite party. Ext.R2 claim form also produced by the opposite party. It is admitted that the complainant himself brought the tyres before the opposite party and it was received by the opposite party earlier for the replacement. The defect of the tyres also not challenged by the opposite party. So it is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party. It means that the Ext.R2 claim form is to be supplied by the dealer and that is why the dealer has signed there for an authorised signatory. No name and address of the manufacturer is written or supplied through the owner’s manual even the owner’s manual never supplied to the complainant by the opposite party. So the complainant has purchased the Ape Piaggio Autorickshaw from the opposite parties and the entire bill was also issued by the 3^rd opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party is liable to cure the defect in the tyres supplied by them with the autorickshaw and if any warranty is issued from the manufacturing company for the tyres that can receive by the opposite party from the Metro Continental Company. It is the duty of the dealer to satisfy the customer and help them. The customers can not be able to approach each manufacturing company for getting the parts replaced. The complainant who is a driver, he may not be able to contact the tyre company for getting the replacement of the tyres. So all the opposite parties are liable for compensating the complainant.

Hence the petition allowed. The 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties are directed to replace the two defectless tyres and tubes with warranty to the complainant within 30 days or pay Rs.3,800/- to the complainant as per Ext.P2 bill and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of this petition failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of March, 2011

Sd/- SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Receipt issued by the opposite party dated 19.3.2010 for Rs.1,45,162/-.

Ext.P2 - Receipts issued by PVM Tyres for the purchase of new tyres – 2 Nos.

On the side of the Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Warranty manual of the vehicle.

Ext.R2 - Proprietory component warranty claim form of the vehicle.

Ext.R3 - Copy of the notice issued by the opposite party on 24.7.2010 to the complainant.