Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/893/2017

Neelam Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apollo Tyres Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Harinder Kumar Adv.

20 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,   U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	893 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	21.11.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	20.07.2018

 

 

 

 

Neelam Devi w/o Nishant Grewal, R/o H.No.2665-2666, U-Type, 135, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.  

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Apollo Tyres Ltd., Plot No.815, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh through its MD/Directors/Authorised Signatory.

2]  Stan Autos Pvt. Ltd., Plot NO.9, Phase-1, Indl. Area, Chandigarh through its MD/Directors/Authorised Signatory.  

                          ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Harinder Kumar, Adv. for the complainant

 Sh.Bharat Mathpal, PV-RSE for OP No.1

 Sh.Amish Goel, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased car Baleno Zeta bearing Regd. No.CH-01-BL-9359 for an amount of Rs.7,77,214/- on 31.3.2017 from  Opposite Party No.2 (Ann.A-1). It is averred that the complainant was shocked to notice that the front left side tyre of the car got bulged only within a period of 6 months and covering 6800 kilometers only. The matter was reported to Opposite Parties whereupon Opposite Party No.1 inspected the tyres and refused to exchange it by giving reason that ‘side wall bulge due to impact’.  It is averred that the refusal of the Opposite Parties to get the defective tyre replaced inspite of the fact that the vehicle was used only for 6800 kilometers in six months just on flimsy report ,amounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1-Apollo Tyres Limited has filed reply stating that the complainant has no cause of action against it as it is clearly described in the PIR i.e. Ann.-I that the cause of damage in the tyre is due to Sidewall Bulge which is deemed to be caused due to several reasons such as Road Hazard, Impact Damage, Pinch Shock, Mounting/Demounting damage in bead.  It is denied that the tyre is of poor quality and have manufacturing defect in it whereas the tyre got damaged due to improper handling of the tyre as described in Ann.II.  It is stated that under the warranty policy, the liability of replacing the tyres arises only when any manufacturing defect is found in the tyres on inspection. It is also stated that in the present case, no manufacturing defect is found in the damaged tyre of the car of the complainant, hence no liability arises towards the Opposite Party No.1. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

         The Opposite Party No.2-Stan Autos has also filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 17.8.2017 with the problem of Tyre bulge.  It is stated that the vehicle in question had been assembled with the help of number of spare parts which had been sourced by the manufacturer through different manufacturing companies and accordingly, each & every company provides its own separate warranty on the said part.  Thus, for the problem of tyre in question, the Opposite Party No.2 cannot be held responsible saying that the vehicle in question is having manufacturing defect.  It is also stated that two years of warranty was extended to the machinery parts which are manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Limited and does not includes tyre, tubes, battery, self-starter etc.  and the same would be taken care of by their manufacturers only. It is submitted that the tyres have not been manufactured by Opposite Party No.2, as such it cannot be held liable for any defects in the tyres, if any, and in case there are any defects, as alleged by the complainant, such defects have to be looked into by the manufacturer of the said tyres i.e. Opposite Party No.1.  Other allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the assertions made in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

 

6]      The complainant purchased car Baleno Zeta bearing Regd. No.CH-01-BL-9359 from Opposite Party No.2 on 31.3.2017 (Ann.A-1).  Only on merely running 6800 kilometers, one tyre make Apollo of front left side of the car was found bulged (swelled).  The complainant reported the matter to the Service Centre wherein on 17.8.2017 the said tyre was reportedly checked by a Technician, who after inspection reported the side wall of the tyre bulged due to impact.  The claim of the complainant, as such, was rejected on the basis of the report from the technician. 

 

7]       The tyre of the car was having 2 years warranty against manufacturing defect, as per the warranty conditions displayed on the website of the OP No.1 – Apollo Tyres Ltd.

8]       The Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs- MHA WO NO.7627/JSP (74) dt. 3.8.1974 as notified in Provisional Manual for Central Reserve Police Force, prescribe the normal life span of tyre in plain/Hill area as follows:

 

	Hilly Area	Plain Area
Light vehicle	35000 kms.	45000 kms

 

         The tyre of the car of the complainant have been damaged on use for 6800 Kilometers only, whereas the normal life span in the hilly area for tyres in Light Vehicle is prescribed as 35000 Kms and on plain area is 45000 Kms.

 

9]       The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(f) define:-

“defect” means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time  being in force or [under any contract, express or implied, or] as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods;”

 

10]      The analytical examination of complete evidence on record and pleadings and looking into deteriorated condition of the tyre of the car only on running of 6800 Kms., explicitly proves that the tyre fitted in the car of the complainant was having sub-standard material.  Had the tyre was of good quality material, it would not have bulged/swelled just on running of car for 6800 Kms. The Opposite Parties should have have taken steps to use good quality tyre of high standard.  If the tyre has been damaged at such minimal road mileage without any fault on the part of the owner/driver, for such loss, the Opposite Parties, which includes the dealer herein are solely responsible for it.  The tyre is definitely has manufacturing defect and needs to be replaced being within warranty period. 

 

11]      The contentions raised by OPs No.2 seeking immunity from the liability is unsustainable. The manufacturer has used hundreds of parts made by other ancillary units/companies in the car. The manufacturer at its own preferred to use parts from other companies and as such, the dealer i.e. Sales Agent of such car has to bear the responsibility in case of any fault/defect in parts of other outer agencies fitted in the car.   

 

12]      There was found no contributory negligence on the part of complainant in use of the car.  The tyre of the car of complainant has damaged due to its internal manufacturing     sub-standard material for which the Sales Agent/Dealer of the car as well as manufacturer of the tyres i.e. Apollo Tyres are jointly & severally responsible. 

 

13]     The report of the technician regarding reasons which caused the tyre bulged, is vague and superfluous.  The tyre of the car bulged on one side on use merely for 6800 kilometers leads to the conclusion that it had caused such defect only due to its own manufacturing defect and of low quality material used for the tyres.  It has been observed that the Companies used to maneuver to reject the genuine claim of the customers by taking such manipulated inspection reports from their own persons. 

 

14]      In The present case, Raj Kishore, who has allegedly inspected the tyre and rejected the claim, without any cogent reasons & without giving any technical & specific reasons, reflect his inefficiency and notorious attitude on his part, which is highly condemnable.  

 

15]      The OP No.1 during hearing of this complaint before the Forum after realizing its fault in rejection of the claim of the complainant offered to replace the tyre now.  However, the Opposite Parties without any legal & valid reasons have deprived the complainant from the benefit of replacement of tyre as per the warranty conditions since 17.8.2017, when the defective tyre was reported to the Opposite Parties and compelled the complainant to file the present complaint before this Forum for redressal of his grievance.  Such an act of corporate sector requires to be snubbed with harsh hands and the OPs as such deserves exemplary reprimand. The OPs No.1 & 2 are found to be deficient in service and also indulged in unfair trade practice on their part.  

 

16]      Keeping into consideration the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint is allowed against OPs No.1 & 2 jointly & severally with direction to replace the defective tyre of the car of the complainant with new tyre, free of cost.  The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay to the complainant a compensatory cost of Rs.50,000/-, on account of causing him mental harassment and torture and indulging in such avoidable litigation, along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

         This order shall be complied with by OPs No.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

20^th July, 2018                                          

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER