DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 31st day of July 2023
Filed on: 20/10/2017
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C No. 415/2017
COMPLAINANT
C Manimuthu aged 40 years S/o Chandrasekharan, Kani Illam , Velloorkunnam, Market P.O , Muvattupuzha-686673
(By Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzaha-686 661)
VS
1. M/s Toyoto Kirloskar Motor PVT. Ltd., 10th Floor, Camberra Tower U. B City, No. 24, Vijay Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001
2. M/s Nippon Toyota, NH-49, Kochi Dhanushkody road ,Mekkadambu P.O, Muvattupuzha-682316 , Represented By its Managing Director
(O.p1 and 2nd ops Rep. by Adv.P.viswanathan, ‘Karthika’, Asoka Road, Kaloor, Kochi-17)
3. M/s Bridgestone India Private Ltd., ESEN Building, X/440 E & G, Puthiya Road, Irimpanam P.O, Ernakulam Dist.-682309 Represented by its Managing Director.
(o.p3 rep. by Adv.Aneesh K.M., M/s.MPR Associates, Near YMCA, Chittoor Road, Cochin-35)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint is filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint is that the complainant purchased a Toyota Innova crystal car with tyres manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. Shortly after the purchase, one tyre burst, causing traffic disruption. The matter was reported to the opposite parties, but no action was taken. Later, while traveling with family, both front tyres and alloy wheels burst, almost resulting in a major accident. The vehicle had covered only 14,000 kilometres at the time. The opposite parties took the car to their workshop, but the 3rd opposite party rejected the claim, stating that the tyre damage was due to an external impact, not a manufacturing defect.
The opposite parties offered partial deductions for replacing the damaged tyres, which the complainant paid, but they argue that the recurring tyre and wheel issues indicate serious manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The complainant seeks rectification of the safety issues and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for hardships and mental agony.
2). Notice
Notice were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice and filed their versions.
3). THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 1 AND 2
The 1st and 2nd opposite parties, who sold the Toyota Innova Crysta vehicle to the complainant, deny any responsibility for the alleged defects in the tyres. They argue that the 3rd opposite party, which manufactured and provided the tyres and step-in, is solely responsible for any defects in the tyres. They claim that the complaint suffers from a misjoinder of parties and should be dismissed.
Regarding the specific incidents mentioned by the complainant, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties deny the occurrence of any such incidents and state that they were not reported to them. They explain that the vehicle's 5,000 km service did not include wheel alignment, as instructed by the complainant. Later, at the 10,000 km service, wheel alignment and rotation were done. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties argue that the damage to the tyres and alloy wheels was caused by the complainant driving the vehicle at high speed and falling into a gutter without applying the brake, resulting in an external impact that led to the damages. They assert that the damages were not due to any manufacturing defect or deficiency of service on their part.
The 1st and 2nd opposite parties claim that they offered a goodwill settlement of 50% discount on one alloy wheel price and a 40% discount on one tyre from the 3rd opposite party, which the complainant accepted in full and final satisfaction of the claim. They state that the complainant is not entitled to any further relief and should not be allowed to make any additional claims. They assert that there is no recurring issue with tyre and wheel breakage and that the complainant's demands are unjustified.
4). Top of Form
THE VERSION OF THE THIRD OPPOSITE PARTY.
The Opposite Party No. 3 disputes the claims made by the complainant. Opposite party No. 3 contends that the complaint is baseless, frivolous, and filed with ulterior motives to harass and extort money from them, requesting dismissal under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The opposite party No. 3 asserts that the complainant's claim should undergo proper adjudication, and the alleged defective tyre should be tested and analyzed to ascertain any real cause of defectiveness. They deny any responsibility for the damages mentioned by the complainant and state that the tyre damage was caused by external factors and road hazards, which are not covered by their warranty policy.
They reject the allegations of delay in response and emphasize that they promptly examined the tyre and rejected the claim based on their inspection and warranty policy. opposite party No.3 mentions that the complainant accepted a goodwill settlement offered by them, indicating satisfaction with the resolution.
Furthermore, opposite party No. 3 requests the commission to direct the complainant to submit the tyre in question for inspection to a government-approved laboratory at the complainant's own cost and risk, to ascertain the cause of damage and any manufacturing defects. They assert that Bridgestone is a reputable manufacturer with quality control checks in place and that their products meet rigorous testing standards.
The opposite party No. 3 contends that the complaint has no cause of action against them and requests dismissal, considering it an abuse of the Consumer Protection Act's remedies. They seek compensation for the costs incurred if the complaint is dismissed.
4) Evidence
The complainant had produced proof affidavit and 4 documents that were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-4.
EXHIBIT A1: Copy of the claim rejection letter sent by the 3rd opposite party.
EXHIBIT A2: Copies of the receipt dated 26.09.2017 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
EXHIBIT A3: Copies of the complaints sent to the 1st opposite party.
EXHIBIT A4: Copies of the photographs of the damaged tyres and wheels.
The opposite parties had produced proof affidavit and documents which were marked as Exhibits B-1 to B-10.
Exbt. B1: The photographs were taken which shows the photographs of the damaged tyre and alloy (6 Nos)
Exbt. B2: copy of job card issued by Toyota Nippon Motor Corporation (P) Ltd.
Exbt.B3: copy of sales invoice issued by Toyota Nippon Motor Corporation (P) Ltd. Dated 27.10.2017.
Exbt.B4: copy of sales invoice issued by Toyota Nippon Motor Corporation (P) Ltd. Dated 11.11.2017
Exbt.B5 : Copy of Bridgestone Warranty policy
Exbt.B6 : copy of claim application form issued by Bridgestone.
Exbt.B7 :; copy of claim application form issued by Bridgestone dated 23.10.2017 in which it is reported that the tyre was having Pinch cut damage.
Exbt.B8 : copy of Mechanism of different cut damages in Bridgestone Technical Service Manual.
Exbt.B9 : copy of damage mechanism given Indian Tyre Technical Advisory Committee Manual (ITTAC).
ExbtB10 : copy of Bureau of Indian Standards Licenses for tyre.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced Copies of the receipts dated 26.09.2017 issued by the 2nd opposite party. (EXHIBIT A-2). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
The complainant has filed a complaint against the opposite parties alleging a manufacturing defect in the tyre and seeking compensation for the losses suffered.
The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant experienced issues with the front tyres and alloy wheels before the vehicle had covered 5267 kilometers, and two other tyres experienced similar problems before reaching 20,000 kilometers. The 3rd opposite party rejected the claim for replacing the tyres, stating that the damage was due to cut penetration caused by an external impact or pinching of the side wall between a hard and sharp external object and the rim flange, resulting in damage or breakage of the ply cord, leaving a cut mark at the bead area.
However, upon examining the job sheets provided by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, it was evident that there was breakage of the alloy wheels, and such breakage could not have been caused by an external impact. Additionally, the two front tyres displayed the same defect. The burden of proof is on the vehicle manufacturer to demonstrate that there was no manufacturing defect, but they have not successfully discharged this burden, according to the counsel for the complainant.
The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 submitted that the complainant failed to provide evidence to support the allegations against OP1 and OP2. They argue that the complainant's claim of both front tyres and alloy wheels being damaged due to a manufacturing defect is improbable and without merit. They suggest that the damage to the tyres and alloy wheels was caused by negligent driving, riding at high speeds, and hitting sharp edges on the road.
Furthermore, the counsel highlights that the complainant accepted a goodwill settlement from OP3, which included discounts on a replacement alloy wheel and tyre, and availed of the same without any objections. They claim that the complainant's reluctance to appoint an expert for examination indicates a lack of confidence in their claims.
The counsel presents case laws to support their argument that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish any manufacturing defects, and dealers like OP1 and OP2 cannot be held liable for such defects. They request the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to dismiss the complaint against OP1 and OP2 and award costs to them.
The counsel for Opposite Parties 1 and 2 (OP1 and OP2) cites several case laws to support their argument that the onus of proving a manufacturing defect lies with the complainant and dealers cannot be held liable for such defects. The case laws mentioned are as follows:
(1) 1 (2010) CPJ 235 (NC): In this case, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission held that the burden of proving a manufacturing defect rests with the complainant. This means that the complainant has the responsibility to provide evidence and establish that there was indeed a manufacturing defect in the product.
(2) Ankur Jain v. Skoda Auto Pvt. Ltd. on 24 May 2019: The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi, referred to the judgment mentioned above and reiterated that the onus of proving a manufacturing defect is on the complainant. This reaffirms the principle that the burden of proof lies with the party making the allegation of a manufacturing defect.
(3) 2000 (10) SCC 654: In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for manufacturing defects in a vehicle, the dealer cannot be held liable. The liability for such defects lies with the manufacturer. This means that dealers, like OP1 and OP2 in this case, cannot be held responsible for manufacturing defects in the products they sell.
(4) 2008 (1) CPJ (NC) 336: The National Commission, in the case of M/s. Abhinandan Vs. Ajit Kumar Verma and Others relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above and ruled that dealers cannot be held liable for manufacturing defects in the product. The responsibility for such defect’s rests with the manufacturer.
These case laws strengthen the counsel's argument that OP1 and OP2 cannot be held liable for any manufacturing defects in the tyres and alloy wheels, as they are only intermediaries/dealers, and the responsibility lies with the manufacturer (OP3).
In the present case in hand, the complainant claims that while travelling with his family, the front right tyre of the vehicle was damaged before covering 5267 kilometres, and no action was taken by the opposite parties despite informing them. The complainant further alleges that on July 28, 2017, when traveling to Tamil Nadu, both front tyres and alloy wheel were damaged in a remote forest area near Punaloor due to a road hazard, and the vehicle was in low speed at that time.
On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 and OP2 disputes the complainant's claims and puts forward several arguments to counter the allegations. They contend that the owner's manual of the vehicle clearly mentions that the tyre and battery are separate entities, and the manufacturer is liable for manufacturing defects. They claim that OP1 and OP2 have no liability in case of any manufacturing defect in the tyres, and the complainant should approach the tyre manufacturer (OP3) for any related issues.
Additionally, the counsel argues that the damage to the tyre and alloy wheel was caused by the complainant's negligent driving at high speed without applying brakes, leading to a collision with sharp edges on the road. They assert that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre and that the complainant failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.
In support of their arguments, the counsel cites relevant case laws to emphasize that the onus of proving a manufacturing defect lies with the complainant and that dealers like OP1 and OP2 cannot be held liable for such defects.
The complaint revolves around the key issue of whether there was a manufacturing defect in the tyre or if the damage was a result of the complainant's negligence. The case is to be decided based on the evidence presented by both parties and the interpretation of the relevant laws and case laws by the commission.
Based on the references to various judgments and orders presented by the counsel, it is evident that there is a consistent legal principle that the onus to prove a manufacturing defect in a product lies with the complainant. In this case, the complainant has alleged a manufacturing defect in the tyre and seeks compensation for the damages. However, as per the case laws cited, the complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proving the manufacturing defect satisfactorily.
The learned counsel for Opposite Party no 3 submitted that the complainant's claim should undergo proper adjudication, and the alleged defective tyre should be tested and analyzed to ascertain any real cause of defectiveness. They deny any responsibility for the damages mentioned by the complainant and state that the tyre damage was caused by external factors and road hazards, which are not covered by their warranty policy.
They reject the allegations of delay in response and emphasize that they promptly examined the tyre and rejected the claim based on their inspection and warranty policy. OP No. 3 mentions that the complainant accepted a goodwill settlement offered by them, indicating satisfaction with the resolution.
Furthermore, OP No. 3 requests the commission to direct the complainant to submit the tyre in question for inspection to a government-approved laboratory at the complainant's own cost and risk, to ascertain the cause of damage and any manufacturing defects. They assert that Bridgestone is a reputable manufacturer with quality control checks in place and that their products meet rigorous testing standards.
OP No. 3 contends that the complaint has no cause of action against them and requests dismissal, considering it an abuse of the Consumer Protection Act's remedies. They seek compensation for the costs incurred if the complaint is dismissed. The Honorable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and other consumer commissions have consistently held that a mere allegation of manufacturing defect is not sufficient, and the complainant must produce expert evidence to substantiate their claim. In several cases, including the one involving M/s. Fiat v. Shri C.N. Ananthram, decided on 17.04.2009, it was emphasized that any relief sought outside the terms and conditions of the manufacturer's warranty cannot be sustained without concrete evidence of a manufacturing defect.
The reference to the Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Sushil Kumar Gabgotra & Anr case further strengthens the point that manufacturing defects require the opinion of an expert to establish their existence. Similarly, the judgments in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs P. Ayyavar Reddy & Anr and other cases highlight the importance of obtaining technical reports and expert opinions to arrive at a just decision.
In the Sri. K. Raveesh vs. Sri K.Y. Shivanna and Sons and Others case, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumkur, held that without any proof of manufacturing defects, the complainant's case is not acceptable, and the dealers had attended to the complaint immediately, dismissing any deficiency in their service.
In light of these legal precedents and considering the lack of expert evidence provided by the complainant in the present case, it is likely that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission may rule in favour of the opposite parties (OP1 and OP2). The onus to prove the manufacturing defect rests with the complainant, and since the complainant had not proved his case on merit the complaint is only to be dismissed and hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounuced in the open Commission on this the 31st day of July 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence
EXHIBIT A1: Copy of the claim rejection letter sent by the 3rd opposite party.
EXHIBIT A2: Copies of the receipt dated 26.09.2017 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
EXHIBIT A3: Copies of the complaints sent to the 1st opposite party.
EXHIBIT A4: Copies of the photographs of the damaged tyres and wheels.
Opposite party’s evidence
The opposite parties had produced proof affidavit and documents which were marked as Exhibits B-1 to B-10.
Exbt. B1: The photographs were taken which shows the photographs of the damaged tyre and alloy (6 Nos)
Exbt. B2: copy of job card issued by Toyota Nippon Motor Corporation (P) Ltd.
Exbt.B3: copy of sales invoice issued by Toyota Nippon Motor Corporation (P) Ltd. Dated 27.10.2017.
Exbt.B4: copy of sales invoice issued by Toyota Nippon Motor Corporation (P) Ltd. Dated 11.11.2017
Exbt.B5 : Copy of Bridgestone Warranty policy
Exbt.B6 : copy of claim application form issued by Bridgestone.
Exbt.B7 :; copy of claim application form issued by Bridgestone dated 23.10.2017 in which it is reported that the tyre was having Pinch cut damage.
Exbt.B8 : copy of Mechanism of different cut damages in Bridgestone Technical Service Manual.
Exbt.B9 : copy of damage mechanism given Indian Tyre Technical Advisory Committee Manual (ITTAC).
ExbtB10 : copy of Bureau of Indian Standards Licenses for tyre.
……………..
