The complainant Ravtesh Inderjit Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Apollo Tyres Limited and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is owner of one car bearing No. PB06-AF-1144 Scoda. The complainant purchased four tyres manufactured by opposite party No. 1, from opposite party No. 2 vide bill No. 1226 dated 25-9-2019 by making cash payment of Rs. 17,000/-. All the four tyres were got fitted by opposite party No. 2 in the car of the complainant after testing proper air pressure. The complainant alleged that he was assured that newly fitted typres are of best quality.
It has been further alleged that on 26-9-2019 i.e. on very next day, complainant was coming from Patiala to Bathinda, while driving the said car, when he reached near Dhanola, suddently, rear tyres of the car burst and gave very large noise, due to which car hit the another car standing on one side of the road and turn turtled in nereby agriculture fields. The entire car got damaged. The complainant also suffered multiple injuries and facture on his shoulder. The complainant remained admitted in Badyal Hospital, Bathinda.
The complainant also alleged that at the time of selling the tyres to complainant, intention of the opposite parties was malafide as they knew that tyres being sold to the complainant are not of best quality. The defective tyres manufactured by opposite party No.1 were sold by opposite party No.2 to the complainant. Since complainant purchased new tyres on 25.09.2019 and proper air pressure was tested and complainant was assured that tyres are of good quality, he was driving the vehicle on 26-09-2019 at very moderate speed of 75 KMPH. Even otherwise also since air pressure was also tested on 25.09.2019 at the time of fitting the tyres and as per guidelines air pressure need to be tested only after seven days, as such there was no violation of any type regarding speed or air pressure on the part of complainant.
The complainant alleged that due to manfacuturing defect and inferior quality of tyres, rear tyre of the vehicle burst otherwise there was no question of burst of tyre within 24 hours of purchase. The opposite parties intentionally sold tyres of inferior quality having manufacturing defect and the tyres might be very old due to which rubber quality of tyre also got effected whereas complainant was told that tyres are newly manufactured and are of good quality.
The complainant further alleged that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part of opposite parties due to which complainant suffered multiple iniuries on his body and even his shoulder got fractured. The complainant also suffered financial loss because his car also damaged. Due to the act of the opposite parties, the complainant also suffered mental tension and agony.
On this backdrop of acts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 17,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a., being cost of tyres and also pay Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of loss of vehicle; Rs. 1,00,000/- being medical expenses and Rs. 10,00,00/- compensation for mental and physical agony besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5500/-.
Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and filed written reply. The opposite party No. 1 in its written reply raised legal objections that the complaint is baseless, frivolous and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts and is devoid of any merits whatsoever. It appears that the present complaint has been filed to gain undue publicity, benefits and bring disrepute to a well known company like Apollo Tyres Limited.
It has been pleaded that where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test to find out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or suffer from any other defect. The complainant has neither produced report of any laboratory recognized by the Central Government or Recognized by a State Government or laboratory or organization established by or under any law.
It has been pleaded that complainant failed to show by leading any evidence whatsoever to prove any "manufacturing defect" in the Tyre. It is by now well settled by various pronouncements of Hon'ble National Commission as well as the Apex Court that it is the responsibility of the Complainant to prove "manufacturing defect" in the tyre and further to prove such a defect, opinion of an Expert is necessary which is not forthcoming in the present case and that no expert report has been placed by the complainant.
On merits, the opposite party No. 1 denied the fact regarding purchase of tyres by complainant and about any assurance given by opposite party No. 2, for want of knowledge. It has been pleaded that opposite party No. 1 is not aware of the status of the complainant or his transactions happened between complainant and opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 is a non-dealer of opposite party No. 1. Apollo Tyres are known for it's best quality products internationally. The opposite party No. 1 also denied that alleged tyre got defective due to any manufacturing defect.
It has also been pleaded that tyres being a rubber product may got damaged any time due to external reasons like accidental damage etc. and all the claims and replacements under the warranty policy are only done in the case when manufacturing defects are found in the tyre. In the present case tyre in question was never presented to opposite party No. 1 for technical inspection to find out cause of defect in the tyre. As per customer friendly policy of the company, opposite party No. 1 replace a tyre only if any manufacturing defect is found during inspection.
The opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that alleged tyre of the complainant was never submitted with it to be addressed as per warranty policy of the company. Apollo tyres are well known internationally for best quality Tyres and prompt after sale service assistance. The opposite party No. 1 denied all other allegations of the complainant. In the end, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
The opposite party No. 2 in separate written reply raised legal objections that complaint against opposite party No. 2 is unnecessarily filed and the same is not maintainable as the opposite party No.2 is only selling point of the company and the guarantee or warranty if any, is given by the manufacturer of the tyres i.e Apollo Tyres Ltd. In this case, the tyres were purchased by opposite party No.2 from D.I Tyres Peer Khana Road, near Sports Stadium Bathinda vide Invoice No.GST-1112 dated 18.07.2019 and the same were sold by opposite party No. 2 to the complainant, as received from the dealer D.I Tyres, Bathinda. As such, the complaint against the opposite party No.2 is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. That there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2 and that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties and is liable to be dismissed.
It has been pleaded that although there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2 as it has sold the tyres as received from the dealer D.I Tyres, Bathinda, but even then the opposite party No.2 is ready to change the tyres with the new one but the complainant is not ready for the same.
On merits, the opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that that there was no defect in the tyres and the same were of best quality but the accident might have taken place due to the bad condition of the road or any other reason. The guarantee or warranty is given by the manufacture of the tyres i.e opposite party No.l. If there is any liability that is of the opposite party No.l. There is no fault on the part of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No. 2 denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the tyres, but pleaded that in case there is any manufacturing defect in the tyres then the opposite party No.1 is responsible for the same. The opposite party No.2 is only the selling point of the company and the guarantee or-warranty if any, is given by the manufacturer of the tyres i.e Apollo Tyres Ltd.
The opposite party No. 2 admitted that it is the dealer of opposite party No.1 but the opposite party No.2 is only the selling point of Apollo tyres as well as other companies also.
It has been pleaded that complainant himself purchased the tyres of Apollo Tyres of his own free will and there was no claim by opposite party No. 2. Moreover, after fitting the said tyres, the same are to be maintained by the consumer with proper air pressure etc., In further reply, the opposite party No. 2 reiterated its version as pleaded in legal objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 also prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant has placed on file his affidavit (Ex. C-4) and the documents (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3). The complainant also tendered in additional evidence survey report of vehicle in question (Ex. C-5).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Abhishek Kumar (OP-1/1).
The opposite party No. 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vivek Jindal (Ex. OP-2/4) and documents (Ex. OP-2/1 to Ex. OP-2/4).
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The submission of learned counsel for the complainant is that on 25-9-2019 complainant purchased four new tyres from opposite No. 2, manufactured by opposite party No. 1, vide Invoice Ex. C-2 for Rs. 17,000/- and on the very next day, one tyre stood burst due to which complainant suffered injury as well as car in question badly damaged and turn turtled in fields. The opposite parties sold the defective/inferior quality product to complainant.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 submitted that complainant has not produced any evidence to prove manufacturing defect in the tyre in question. The complainant has not produced the tyre before this Commission for inspection. He has also not got the alleged tyre checked from appropriate laboratory. The complainant cannot allege manufacturing defect in the absence of any evidence. Further being rubber product, tyre may get damaged due to external reason like accidental damage.
The learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 submitted that oppoiste party No. 2 purchased the tyre in question from D.I Tyres, Bathinda and sold the same to complainant as it was received. The opposite party No. 2 is only the selling point of the company and guaratee or warranty if any, is given by the manufacturer of the tyres i.e. opposite party No. 1.
It is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased 4 tyres from opposite party No. 2, manufactured by opposite party No. 1 on 25-9-2019 vide invoice Ex. C-2, for Rs. 17,000/-. There is also no dispute that one tyre out of said 4 tyres stood burst on 26-9-2019 i.e. on very next day.
The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the tyre in question but the opposite parties have pleaded that complainant has not produced any evidence to prove manufacturing defect or that he has not got checked the tyre/product from appropriate laboratory.
A perusal of file reveals that opposite parties have not moved any application/request to this Commission seeking direction of this Commission to complainant to produce tyre in question before this Commission or before the opposite parties to get the same checked from any expert/technical person in this field whereas complainant has placed on file sufficient evidence to prove his case.
Ex. C-2 is the copy of DDR which was got recorded by complainant himself to the effect that on 26-9-2019 when complainant was going from Patiala to Bathinda, while driving his Skoda Car bearing Registration No. PB-06AF-1144, suddenly rear tyre got burst due to which his car became uncontrollable and hit the Swift Car bearing PB-30F-9892 standing on the side of the road. Thereafter car of the complainant turned turtled in the adoinging agricultural fields. It has also been recorded in this DDR that complainant was taken to CHC Dhanula by general public and after first-aid, he was referred to Badyal Hospital, Bathinda.
Ex. C-3 is the prescription slip of Badyal Multispeciality Hospital and Trauma Centre dated 26-9-2019, which proved that complainant got treatment from said hospital.
Ex. C-5 is the copy of Motor Survey Report which also makes the position crystal clear that car in question of complainant was damaged to the extent of total loss. The cause of accident/occurance is mentioned in this report as under :-
“As narrated to me and written in the claim form and as per spot of police report, the car driven by insured himself was going on its way from Patiala to Bathinda, when car reached near place of accident, due to burst of rear tyre of insured car, his car became out of control and after colide with third party car No. PB-30F-9892, turned over road side deep khatans. Hence loss occurred”
The submission of the opposite parties is that tyres can burst with external reason i.e. accidental but this Commission is of the view that in this case, rear tyre of the car was burst and front tyres of the car were intact and tyre in question burst on the next day of purchase is only due to manufacturing defect. Once the complainant proved that the tyre burst only after one day of its purchase then it was open for the opposite parties to prove that there was not any manaufacturing defect.
The opposite parties have not placed on file any document to rebut this evidence of complainant which reveals that mishap took place due to burst of rear tyre of car of complainant. The opposite parties have also not produced any evidence on file to show that they made any effort to inspect the tyre in question of complainant or deputed any expert for this purpose or requested this Commission to get the tyre inspected by any expeert. The opposite parties failed to rebut the aforesaid evidence of complainant to prove their version.
Thus, keeeping in view the facts and circumstances and evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in sevice and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in selling the inferior quality product to complaint due to which complainant suffered financial loss as well as physical and mental sufferings.
Now the question is regarding relief to which complainant is entitled to. The complainant has claimed Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of loss of vehicle. As per survey report, vehicle loss was assesed and paid by Insurance Company. The complainant has also claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of medical expenses. No proof regarding incurred expenses on this account has been placed on file, but complainant suffered injury due to fault on the part of the opposite parties. In addition to this, complainant has also claimed huge amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation on account of physical and mental agony. This Commission is of the considered opinion that deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties stands proved. In such circumstances, it would meet the ends of justice if an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in lump sum as compensation and litigation expenses is allowed to the complainant.
In the result, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are also directed to refund Rs. 4250/- to complainant, being the cost of tyre.
The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which aforsaid awarded amount will yield interest @8% p.a. till payment.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced :
24-5-2022
(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President
(Shivdev Singh)
Member
(Paramjeet Kaur)
Member
