By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:

            This consumer complaint is filed alleging that the Complainant had purchased two tyres from the 1^st Opposite Party for his lorry bearing Registration No. KL 12 G 2867.  The Complainant is the owner of the said vehicle.  The Complainant further states that  the 1^st  Opposite Party had made the Complainant to believe that the tyres manufactured by the 2^nd  Opposite Party is the best available tyres and that the Complainant can use the tyres for a minimum of 2,00,000 km in his vehicle.  Believing the words of the Opposite Party the Complainant purchased two tyres on 21.08.2015 from the 1^st Opposite Party, and an amount of Rs.40,500/- has been paid by the Complainant as consideration to the 1^st Opposite Party.

            2.  On 21.09.2015 while the tyre was used only for 3060 km, one of the tyres had broken.  The Complainant took the tyre to the 1^st  Opposite Party and they have advised him to show the tyre to the 2^nd  Opposite Party and said that the 2^nd  Opposite Party will replace the tyre.  Therefore the Complainant took the tyre to Calicut, Where the 2^nd Opposite Party is located and handed over the same to the 2^nd  Opposite Party.  Their representatives gave the receipt and agreed to replace the tyre within 2 days.  The 2^nd  Opposite Party had not replaced the tyre and the Complainant had repeatedly and again contacted them and requested them to replace the tyre but they did not replace the tyre.  The Complainant states that the income from the lorry is the main livelihood of the Complainant.  Due to the inert action from the side of the Opposite Parties the Complainant could not operate the service of the lorry for seven days and thereby ocurred a loss of Rs.28,000/-.  Further he had stated that he had to pay a huge amount to the financier and also towards tax to the Government.  An amount of Rs.50,000/- is worked out by the Complainant as compensation towards the mental pain.  Therefore the Complainant had approached the Commission seeking to issue orders directing the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.20,250/- being the value of the tyre with interest @ 12% from 21.08.2015 till the date of realization along with other reliefs.

            3.  Upon notice from the Commission the Opposite Parties appeared and filed their joint version.  It is contented by the Opposite Parties that the tyres manufactured/imported by the 2^nd Opposite Party are governed under warranty subject to inspection by the technical service engineer of 2^nd  Opposite Party, in the case of damage attributable to manufacturing defect and not against damages caused by road hazards and other external factors.  The Service Engineer of 2^nd Opposite Party reported after inspection of the tyre that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre under question.  Understanding the difficulty of the Complainant, 2^nd Opposite Party had offered replacement of tyre on goodwill basis at a discounted value of Rs.10,229/- which was initially accepted by the Complainant and later outrightly rejected and demanded free of cost replacement of the tyre.  Since the damage of the tyre is not due to manufacturing defect,  the demand of the Complainant is unjustifiable.  In the version the Opposite Party stated that as per the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986,  if the Complaint is related to any defect, for proper adjudication of complaint, test/analysis of the alleged goods as per Section 13(1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is to be carried out for ascertaining the real cause of the alleged defect of the product.   The Opposite Party had further elaborated the above contention and also cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maruti Udyog Limited V Sushil Kumar Gabgotra and another II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC) dated 29.03.2006 quoted in the order M/s. Fiat India Limited V Shri. C. N. Ananthram decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 17.04.2009 and other judgments in support of their argument. 

            4.  The tyre was sent to the Rubber Research Institute of India and obtained the Report of the examination on 25.04.2017.

            5.  The complainant had produced Ext.A1 to A4 documents including 3 photographs and 2 documents from the side of Opposite Parties.  The Complaint was taken up for hearing on 03.04.2023. The Counsel for the Opposite Parties appeared and stated that he had no instruction from the Opposite Parties and filed a Memo that he does not have intention to proceed with his Vakalath in this case.  In these circumstances Ext.A1 to A4 marked from the side of the Complainant.  The documents produced by the Opposite Parties are also taken in to account.  The report of the Expert Commissioner is marked as Ext.C1.  There is no oral evidence from either side.

            6.  The following are the important aspects to be analyzed in this complaint:-

                        1).  Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade

      practice occurred from the side of the Opposite Parties    

      towards the Complainant…?.

2).  If so the quantum of compensation to be paid to the

     Complainant…?.

3).  Cost of proceedings if any?

            7. Points No.1 to 3:-  While on going through the history of the case of the Complainant, it can be seen that the Complainant had purchased two tyres from the Opposite Party which has not been disputed by the Opposite Party.  The tyres were purchased by the Complainant on 21.08.2015 from Opposite Party and one of the tyres had broken on 21.09.2015 and that too after running a short distance of 3060 km only. 

8.  In this connection the report of the Expert Commissioner is very vital and the findings are very important in deciding the merit of the case.  The finding of Expert Commissioner is that “the damage on the tyre appeared to be due to impact of external object and cannot be categorically stated to be due to a manufacturing defect”.  The observation that there is a cut perpendicular to the side wall, then extending along the radius of its side wall which has broken the steel wires all along the cut.   Moreover, the observation of the Expert Commissioner is that “if the rubber compound is of very low strength it can get cut easily.  If the side wall compound does not contain the required quality of rubber and fillers there is a chance for these type of damage. 

9.  From the above observations it can be presumed that the cut in the tyre had formed even though induced by an external object like stone or something else, the findings of the expert points out to the chances of very low strength of rubber compound which is sufficient to a certain extent to substantiate the argument of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties have no case that it is intentionally made by somebody. Moreover and above that the duration of the usage of tyre is merely one month from the date of purchase within which it had broken also reveals the defect and low quality of the tyre.  No contra evidences to the above observations of the Expert Commissioner had been produced by the Opposite Parties.

            10.  The Judgment of the Apex Court and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, produced by the Opposite Parties are pertaining to different circumstances and do not have relevance in this complaint.  The Complainant had proved the allegation made by him. Hence Opposite Party is liable to compensate the loss sustained to the Complainant.

            Therefore the following orders are issued:-

            (1)  The Opposite Parties shall pay an amount of Rs.20,250/- (Rupees

                    Twenty Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Only) to the Complainant

                    with interest @  6% from 21.08.2015 till the date of realization.

            (2)  An amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) shall be paid

                    as compensation.

            (3)  An amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) shall be

                    paid as cost.

            The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amounts to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. C.C. No.314/2015 is allowed accordingly.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28^th day of April 2023.

Date of Filing:-28.10.2015.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

                        Nil.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

                        Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Copy of Certificate of Registration.

A2.                  Retail Invoice.                                                          Dt:21.08.2015.

A3.                  Receipt.                                                                     Dt:23.09.2015.

A4(a).                        Photograph.

A4(b).                        Photograph.

A4(c).             Photograph.

C1.                  Expert Commission Report.                                 Dt:27.12.2022.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

                        Nil.     

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.