D.O.F:28/05/2016
D.O.O:30/07/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.162/2016
Dated this, the 30th day of July 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Kunhabdulla.C.H
S/o Muhammed Kunhi,
Cheenamadath House,
Parappa P.O, Pin- 671533 : Complainant
Kasaragod District
( Adv: Rajesh.K)
And
- The Sales Manager
M/S. KVR CARS
N.H – 17, Arangadi
P.O.Kanhangad – 671315
2. The Sales Manager
M/s KVR CARS
Anangoor, Vidyanagar. P.O
Kasaragod – 671123
: Opposite Parties
- The Sales Manager
Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd
Regd: Office: Plot No.1,
Nanson Mandela Road,
Vasanthkunj, New Delhi – 110070
(Adv: Shrikanta Shetty OP 1 to 3)
- Arun Kumar.M
Technician Apolla Tyres Ltd
C/o. KVR cars, kanhangad
P.O Kanhangad
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased a MARUTHI SWIFT DZIRE ZDI car from the Opposite Party.No.1 on 29.04.2014, for a total amount of Rs.6,90,111/- . The Opposite Party No.3 is the manufacturer of the car. At the time of delivery of the Vehicle, there were 4 tyres of Appollo tyres fixed to the car and a similar step tyre also provided.
There after the Complainant was using the Car with proper maintenance, but when the Vehicle covered 10,000 km, the 4 tyres are seen worn out. Normally the tyres having good quality are used in new cars and it would run up to 30,000 to 40000 Kms. The Complainant has been maintaining the Vehicle with care .He is very particular in keeping the wheels on good checkup and wheel alignment .The Vehicle being used in a good macadam tar road. Inspite of all these, the new 4 tyres got worn out within a short coverage of 10,000 Kms. and it is evident that the tyres are of substandard quality. The complainant informed the matter to the Opposite Party No.1 and being convinced, the Opposite Party No.1 promised to replace the worn out tyres with new ones. But not done.
The act of the Opposite Party amounts to unfair trade practice and service deficiency, due to which the complainant suffered great mental agony and monetary loss.
He could not use the car for his business travel. The complainant sent registered notice to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Parties did not comply with the demands. Hence this complaint is filed seeking compensation of Rs.75,000/-and costs
The notice issued to the Opposite Party are served and Opposite Party No.1 to 3 entered appearance through their respective counsels, who filed separate written Versions. Opposite Party.
The Opposite Party No.4 called absent and was set exparte.
As per the version of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2, the complaint is false, frivolous and not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed.
The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 state that the coverage of warranty of Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd, is only for manufactural defects of Engine and Chassis by rectification or replacement. The other parts such as tyres, tubes, batteries etc. are warrantied by the concerned manufacturers. Therefore the manufactural defects of tyres are to be answered by M/s Appollo Tyres Ltd, who is a necessary Party and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
The technician of AppoIIo tyres inspected the tyres and found that the reason for the worn out of tyres are not because of manufactural defects, but due to improper maintenance of car usage.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 . The complainant is liable to be dismissed
As per the version of the Opposite Party No. 3, the contents of the complaint are wrong, incorrect, and frivolous and emphatically denied.
It is submitted that the tyres and tubes are not covered under the ambit of warranty: The alleged problem in the tyre is attributed to the negligence and careless maintenance of the Vehicle.
Therefore the manufactural defects of tyres are to be answered by M/s Appollo Tyres Ltd, who is a necessary Party and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.3. The complainant is liable to be dismissed. An expert commission was appointed in this case as per the l A No. filed by the complainant. The Commissioner, who is an AMVI, filed his report after inspection.
As per the report, among other things, it is stated that, all the tyres were worn out uniformly and no damage like side cut, crown damage and spotty wear were found. The tyre maintenance has been done in proper period as per the owner's manual. No mechanical defects were found to the vehicle. The front brake caliper assembly of the Vehicle has been replaced on 5.9. 2015 and the Vehicle has covered 1261 KMs. It shows that the usage of brake were more. The vehicle has conducted 3 free Services from the car dealer during the specified period.
If any abnormal wear found to tyre, they have to inform the driver and also required advice may be given to avoid this wear to the tyre. If the dealer has given proper advise, this complaint may not be raised.
The other reason for the rapid tyre worn out is any irregularities in the manufacturing process of the tyre, for which a higher level competent in this field may enquiry. It is also stated that no tyre manufacturers assures minimum tyre life fitted to a brand new vehicle.
The Complainant filed the proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced documents which are marked as Ext. A1 to Ext. A8. The Ext - A1 is the copy of the RC, Ext. A2 is the copy of extended Warranty Registration, Ext 'A3 is the copy of Regd. legal notice dated 06-02-2016, Ext A4 is the Reply notice dated 25-02-2016, Ext A5 is the Reply notice dated 29-02-2016, Ext - A6 is the product Inspection report dated 03 - 03-2016 , Ext.A7 is the copy of Police Complaint dated o4-03-2016, ExtA8 is the acknowledgement Receipt. The complainant was Cross -examined as PW - 1.
From the side of the Opposite Parties, no witnesses examined. The Opposite Party No.3 produced 2 documents which are marked as Ext.B1 and B2. The Ext. B1 is the copy of the Warranty Policy. Dated 08-11-2018, Ext. B2 is the copy of Dealership agreement. The expert Commissioner's report dated 24.07.2017 is marked as Ext. C -1.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that the he purchased a MARUTHI SWIFT DZIRE ZDI car from the Opposite Party. No.1 on 29.04.2014 for a total amount of Rs.6,90,111/- . The Opposite Party No.3 is the manufacturer of the car. At the time of delivery of the Vehicle, there were 4 tires of Appollo tyres fixed to the car and a similar Step tyre was also provided .
There after the Complainant was using the Car with proper maintenance, but when the Vehicle covered 10,000 km, the 4 tyres are seen worn out. Normally the tyres having good quality are used in new cars and it will run up to 30,000 to 40000 Kms. The Complainant has been maintaining the Vehicle with care .He is very particular in keeping the wheels on good checkup and wheel alignment .The Vehicle being used in a good macadam tar road. Inspite of all these, the new 4 tyres got worn out within a short coverage of 10,000 Kms. and it is evident that the tyres are of substandard quality. The complainant informed the matter to the Opposite Party No.1 and he, being convinced, promised to replace the worn out tyres with new ones. But not done.
The act of the Opposite Parties amounts to unfair trade practice and service deficiency, due to which the complainant suffered great mental agony and monetary loss. He could not use the car for his business travel. The complainant sent registered notice to the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties did not complied with the requests. Hence this complaint is filed seeking compensation of Rs.75,000/-and costs
As per the version of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2, the complaint is false frivolous and not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed.
The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 state that the coverage of warranty of Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd , is only for manufactural defects of Engine and Chassis by rectification or replacement. The other parts such as tyres ,tubes, batteries etc. are warrentied by the concerned manufacturers. Therefore the manufactural defects of tyres are to be answered by M/s Appollo Tyres Ltd, who is a necessary Party and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties..
The technician of AppoIIo tyres inspected the tyres and found that the reason for the worn out of tyres are not because of manufactural defect but due to improper maintenance of car usage. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OppositeParty. The complainant is liable to be dismissed
As per the version of the Opposite Party No 3, the contents of the complaint are wrong, incorrect, and frivolous and emphatically denied. It is submitted that the tyres and tubes are not covered under the ambit of warranty: The alleged problem in the tyre is attributed to the negligence and careless maintenance of the Vehicle. Therefore the manufactural defects of tyres are to be answered by M/s Appollo Tyres Ltd, who is a necessary Party and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.3. The complainant is liable to be dismissed.
Here there is no dispute regarding the purchase of the new Car by the complainant from the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.for valid price consideration. . The main case of the complainant is that the 4 new tyres fixed to the newly bought car worn out within its running coverage of 10,000 KMs. Normally the tyres having good quality are used in new cars and it will run up to 30,000 to 40000 Kms. The Complainant has been maintaining the Vehicle with care. He is very particular in keeping the wheels on good checkup and wheel alignment .The Vehicle being used in a good macadam tar road. Inspite of all these, the new 4 tyres got worn out within a short coverage of 10,000 Kms. and it is evident that the tyres are of substandard quality.
Here the complainant produced Ext.A2, which is a copy of extended warranty registration certificate It shows that there was warranty coverage for the vehicle up to 28.04.2017. So the dispute raised is within the Warranty period. The complainant states that he has been maintaining the Vehicle with care. He is very particular in keeping the wheels on good checkup and wheel alignment. The expert Commissioner also endorse that aspect. The expert states that the tyre maintenance has been done in proper period as per the owners manual. Inspite of that the tyres worn out disproportionate to its usage. The expert states the meter reading was 12,261 Kms at the time of inspection. It proves that the Vehicle was of minimum level of usage.
The Opposite Parties argues that the tyres and tubes are not covered under the ambit of warranty. The Opposite Parties further argue that the alleged problem in the tyre is attributed to the negligence and careless maintenance of the Vehicle. But there is no evidence for that. As per the expert report, it is stated that, all the tyres were worn out uniformly and no damage like side cut, crown damage and spotty wear were found. So the quick wearing out of the Tyres cannot be attributed to the road hazards.
It is true that no tyre manufacturers assures minimum tyre life fitted to a brand new vehicle. But by reading the versions of the Opposite Parties as well as the expert report , between the lines, it can be concluded that there is disproportionate and rapid worn out of the tyres in this case. There is no evidence to show that the complainant used the Car negligently without proper maintenance. So the problem is related to some inherent manufactural defects of the tyres.
The Complainant consumer paid the Iumpsum amount of price for the whole Vehicle and not for any part of it , say , chassis or engine alone. Therefore the Opposite Parties being the dealers and manufacturers of the Vehicle , have a bounden duty to provide a defect free product. They cannot go away stating that it is the tyre manufacturers to answer for any defects in tyres. Here the Opposite Parties also have not taken any steps to implead the tyre manufactures. There is no merit in their unilateral one sided warranty policies and the bonafide consumers shall not be let to suffer.
Here an expert report shows that the vehicle has conducted 3 free Services from the car dealer during the specified period. If any abnormal wear found to tyre, they have to inform the driver and also required advice may be given to avoid this wear to the tyre . If the dealer has given proper advise, this complaint may not be raised.
So considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Commission is of the view that there is negligence and service deficiency on the part of the Opposite parties. Here the complainant does not pray for any relief of the replacement of tyres
The complainant states that he suffered great mental agony and hardships due to the negligence and service deficiency of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate for that.
The complainant estimates his loss and damage to the tune of Rs.75,000/-But there is no reliable evidence for that. This commission is of the view that Rs. 20,000/- would be a reasonable amount of compensation.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties NO.1 and 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards costs to the complainant .
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of receipt of the copy of this judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Copy of the R.C
A2- Copy of extended warranty registration
A3- Copy of registered legal notice 06/02/2016
A4- Reply notice Dt. 25/02/2016
A5- Reply notice Dt: 29/02/2016
A6- The product of inspection report
A7- The copy of police complaint
A8- Acknowledgment receipt of Petition.
B1- copy of the warranty policy
B2- Dealership agreement
C1- Expert Commissioner’s report
Witness Examined
Pw1- C.H Kunhabdulla
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
