IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 30^th  day of August, 2022

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

            Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

            Smt. Bindhu R. Member

C C No.52/2022 (filed on 09/03/2022)

Petitioner                                   :         Arun M. Nair S/o Manmadhan Nair,

                                                            Kochupurackal House, Karamala P.O,

                                                            Poovakulam, Veliyannor Village,

                                                            Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam-686634.

                                                            (Adv. Akash K.R.)

                                                                      Vs.              

Opposite parties                         :  1)    Tyre Care, Opp Reliance Pump, M.C.

                                                            Road, Koothattukulam Rep. by its

Proprietor.

2)    Apollo Tyres Ltd., Door No. 3/135 F & G, Kevi Warer House, Varakkal Temple Raod, West hill P.O., Calicut -673005 Rep. by its Managing Director.

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

          The case is filed Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

          The brief of the complaint’s Case is as follows,

          The complainant is the owner of Ford made Freestyle Titanium Plus Car bearing Reg. No. KL-07-CD-22.  The complainant had purchased two Apollo Amazer 4G LITE tyres from the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.9800/- on 12-02-2021. The tyres were manufactured by the second opposite party. The first opposite party promised that the tyres manufactured by the second opposite party is one of superior quality and will deliver better performance. The first opposite party made the complaint believe that the tyres were having a replacement warranty for two years, or till a mileage of 80000/- kms. On 10-08-2021 one of the tyres fixed on the front left side busted in running. On inspection the complainant noticed that the other tyre purchased from the first opposite party bulged through its sides. The complainant had registered a claim for warranty with the second opposite party on 20-09-2021 and returned the damaged tyres to the first opposite party. The tyres were suffering from manufacturing defect. One tyre was returned by the first opposite party after two days, and the other tyre is still with the first opposite party. The second opposite party repudiated the claim stating that “the complaint does not relate to manufacturing defect or material related failure and therefore not covered under warranty”. The second opposite party found that the tyres were having defects, but were not manufacturing defect. The complainant’s vehicle had covered less than 20000/- kilometers by using these tyres. The first opposite party had promised 2 year/80000 kilometers warranty. The act of the opposite parties were deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

          On admission of the complainant, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared before the commission but failed to file their version or to adduce evidence to defend their case. The opposite parties were set exparte.

          The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibit A1 and Exhibit A2.

          On the basis of the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. If so what are the reliefs and costs.

For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.

Pont No.1 and 2

          On going through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had purchased two tyres Appollo Amazer 4G Lite from the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.9,800/- on 12.02.2021. The tyres were purchased for his vehicle bearing Reg.No. KL-07-CD-22. One of these tyres busted in running on 10-08-2021. On inspection the second tyre was bulged through its sides. Claim for warranty was registered before the second opposite party on 20-09-2021 and the two tyres were returned to the first opposite party. One tyre was returned by the first opposite party, after two days. The second opposite party repudiated the claim. Exhibit A1 is the copy of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle KL-07-CD-22. Exhibit A2 is the bill dated 12-02-2021 issued by the first opposite party for the sale of two Appolo Amazer tyres for an amount of Rs.9,800/-.

          There is no evidence to show that one of the tyres burst while running and it was due to the defect of the tyre. Even though the complainant alleges manufacturing defect, no expert evidence is adduced to prove manufacturing defect. The only evidence available is that the complainant had purchased the tyres. There is no evidence to show the defect of the tyres. The complainant had failed to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party with cogent evidence.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is dismissed.

          Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th day of August, 2022

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                   Sd/-            

Sri. Manulal V.S. President               Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R. Member                   Sd/-

                                                                                            By Order

                                                                                     Assistant Registrar