CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 158/2008.


Between:

Devulapalli Venkateshwara Rao,
S/o Late Sri Chalapathi Rao,
Age: 62 yrs, R/o Mattewada,
Waragal.
… Complainant

A N D


1. M/s Suguna Motors,
15-1-59/1, Opp: Govt. Polytechnic,
S.V.P. Road,
Warangal.

2. M/s. Apollo Tyres, Hill fort,
Adarsha Nagar, Khairatabad,
Hyderabad – 500 004.

3. M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd., 7,
Institutional area, Sector – 32,
Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001.
Per its Managing Director in office.

4. Service Engineer, Apollo Tyres,
Besides B.S.N.L. Office,
Opp: City Grand Hotel, SVP Road,
Warangal. … Opposite Parties


Counsel for the Complainant :: Sri. CAR Sheshagiri Rao, Advocate.

Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 :: Sri T.V. Ramana, Advocate.
Opposite parties 2 and 4 :: Did not appear and have been set Exparte.
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 :: Sri P. Muralidhar, Advocate.

This complaint is coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.

ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President


This complaint is filed by the complainant D. Venkateshwara Rao against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to replace five tyres with new ones, to pay Rs.1,500/- towards the cost of new tyre and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages.

The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

The case of the complainant is that he purchased ALTO Car of Maruthi Company from opposite party No.1 in December, 2007 which was manufactured by Opposite party No.2 and the same was registered on 21-01-2008 vide No.AP36-AA-6369. The opposite parties given warranty for one year, as per which the tyre should be replaced by opposite parties on free of cost. During June, 2008 one tyre was airborne and immediately the complainant took the car to opposite party No.1 and came to know that it was manufacturing defect. As per advice the complainant addressed a letter to opposite party No.3 on 18-06-2008 requesting for replacement of the same. The opposite party No.4 approached and according to the instructions of opposite party No.4, the complainant given tyre at Shrirama tyre Agency, Warangal but no replacement was made. As such the complainant again addressed a letter to opposite party No.4 on 25-06-08, for which also no use. The complainant getting vexed had no other go but for buying a new tyre by himself which ought to have been replaced by the opposite parties. The complainant got a thorough search made in the internet and on knowing the prescribed technical standards the tyre thoroughly checked and to his shock found that only one steel radial layer exists while there should be two. His journeys to Hyderabad where under severe tension. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties 1 and 4 on 16-07-2008 demanding for replacement of all tyres, for which no reply is received. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to replace the tyres of the above car with new one, to pay costs of Rs.1,500/- and damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs.

The opposite party No.1 filed the Written Version stating that it is true that the complainant purchased an ALTO CAR LXSTR BSIIII on 21-01-2008 from Maruthi Suziki Show Room, Warangal as they are the authorized dealer. The car would be fitted with the parts manufactured by the concerned manufacturers with an internal understanding. As per bye-laws they are no way concerned to the tyres defects M/s Apollo Tyres Limited are responsible for complaint. Since September, 2008 they are not authorized dealers for Maruthi Suzuki, Warangal which transferred to Adarsha Automobiles private limited, Mulugu road, Warangal.

The opposite party No.3 filed the Written version stating that he denied the contents of the complaint and he stated that the alleged tyre was shown to the technical service expert of the answering company but no manufacturing defect was found in the tyres and cause of defect was found as “Run flat” which causes due to running of tyre without air and cuts were made in the tyre” which is not a manufacturing defect. It is pertinent to mention that Tyre being a rubber product may damage any time due to such non manufacturing reasons. Hence, claim of tyre was rejected and complainant was well informed about it. Despite no manufacturing defect in the alleged tyre answering respondent offered the complainant replacement of only defected tyre as he claimed himself to be a judicial magistrate, but the complainant surprisingly demanded for all five tyres despite no defect in any of other four tyres which cannot be accepted by the answering respondent and requested this Forum to dismiss this case.

The opposite parties No.2 and 4 did not appear, hence this Forum set them Exparte.

The complainant in support of his claim, filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of opposite parties Sri A.Vidyasagar and Sanjay Jain filed their Affidavits in the form of chief examination but not marked any documents.


Now the point for consideration is:
1)Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2)If so, to what Relief?
Point No.1:-


Now this Forum has to see whether the alleged tyre is a manufacturing defect or not. This Forum has to decide the same point.


Whether the tyre is having any manufacturing defect or not compulsorily it is burden of proof on the complainant side only. He himself has to prove with regard to that manufacturing defect. On the basis of expert opinion filed by the opposite parties he clearly stated that upon examination of the tyre he did not find any manufacturing defect in the tyre in question. Cause of defect was found as RUN FLAT WHICH CAUSES BY RUNNING OF TYRE WITHOUT AIR. So it is not a manufacturing defect. We agree and accept the opinion of the expert even though he belongs to opposite parties expert. We accept the same opinion of the expert because it is true without air if the car run certainly the tyre will be damaged. So as per the expert opinion it is clear the cause of defect of found as RUN FLAT WHICH CAUSES BY RUNNING OF TYRE WITHOUT AIR. So it is not a manufacturing defect.

Further the Suguna Motors they also directed the Engineer Apollo Tyres to see about the tyre and replace the same. After that only the expert has given this opinion and filed the same. So on the basis of expert it is not a manufacturing defect and it is only as the complainant run the car without air. Then the tyre was damaged. On the basis of expert we come to the conclusion that the defect was found in the tyres and because of defect found as RUN FLAT WHICH CAUSES BY RUNNING OF TYRE WITHOUT AIR and were made in the tyre is not a manufacturing defect. And further tyre being a rubber produce may damage any time due to such non manufacturing reasons. Hence, the claim of tyre was rejected. So when the tyre is not a manufacturing defect certainly the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

For the foregoing reasons given by us we come to the conclusion that the tyre is not a manufacturing defect and the complainant failed to prove his case and get the relief from the opposite party. Hence, we decided this point in favour of the opposite party against the complainant.

Point No.2: To what Relief:- The first point is decided in favour of the opposite party against the complainant this point is also decided in favour of the opposite party against the complainant.