KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL Nos. 237/2021 and 277/2021
COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 10.12.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 186/2018 of DCDRC, Kasaragod)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
APPEAL No. 237/2021
APPELLANT:
The Sales Manager, M/s KVR Cars, Anangoor, Vidyanagar P.O., Kasaragod-671 123.
(By Adv. N.G. Mahesh)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- C. Madhavan, Nheruvil House, Kuttikol, Kuttikol Post, Kasaragod-671 541.
- The Sales Manager, Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., Reg. Office, Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasanthkunj, New Delhi-110 070.
(By Adv. Anto Thomas and R. Suja Madhav for R2)
APPEAL No. 277/2021
APPELLANT:
Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasanthkunj, New Delhi-110 070 represented by its Authorized Officer/Attorney, Mr. Lokesh Pandey working as the Deputy General Manager, Legal having its Registered office at Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasanthkunj, New Delhi-110 070.
(By Adv. Anto Thomas and R. Suja Madhav)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- C. Madhavan, Nheruvil House, Kuttikol, Kuttikol Post, Kasaragod-671 541.
- KVR Cars, Anangoor, Vidyanagar P.O., Kasaragod-671 123 represented by its Authorized Officer.
(By Adv. N.G. Mahesh for R2)
COMMON JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellant in Appeal No. 237/2021 is the 2nd opposite party, the appellant in Appeal No. 277/2021 is the 1st opposite party and the 1st respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 186/2018 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (for short ‘the District Commission’).
2. The complainant purchased a Maruti Swift car from the 2nd opposite party on 21.06.2016 for a total consideration of Rs. 8,29,457/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Seven only). The 1st opposite party was the manufacturer of the car. The four tires of the car were “Good Year” tires having batch No. 3015, whereas the spare tire was “MRF” tire with batch No. 3113. The complainant had requested the opposite parties to give all the tires of the same company when he had given the vehicle for the first service itself. However, they stated that it could be done later. Even after repeated requests, the opposite parties did not replace the tires with the tire of the same brand. Thereafter, when the tires were worn out, the complainant tried to change one of the tires with the spare tire. Then it was noticed that the spare tire was having a different size. It was also noticed that the wheel of the spare tire was not an alloy wheel. So he requested the opposite party to replace the spare tire with another tire having the correct size. However, the 2nd opposite party did not do that. In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties.
3. The 1st opposite party filed version contending that the spare tire and wheel are only intended for temporary emergency use. The inflation pressure of the spare tire should be checked at least once in a month. The continuous use of the spare tire could result in tire failure and loss of control.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed version admitting that the complainant was supplied with a Maruthi Swift Dzire diesel car with four tires having the same size with alloy wheels and a spare tire having a bit smaller size with steel wheel. The spare tire is called emergency tire and it could be used only to reach the next garage to fix the puncture and to put the original tire in its place. The said types of international norms are used with the emergency tire only since it is to be used sparingly to cut cost and reduce the required storage space. This fact is very well explained to the complainant at the time of delivery of the car and also by reply letter. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service.
5. PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked for the complainant. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exhibits B1 to B5 were marked for the opposite parties. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) jointly and severally to the complainant towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards costs. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.
6. Heard. Perused the records.
7. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Maruti car from the 2nd opposite party on 21.06.2016. The complainant would contend that the said car had four tires of similar size and the said four tires were having alloy wheels also. However, the spare tire was of different size and the wheel was not an alloy wheel. In the said circumstances, the complainant requested the opposite parties to get the spare tire replaced with a tire having the size of the other tires with an alloy wheel. He contended that if a different type of tire is used as a spare tire, there is chance for causing accident due to the difference in the alignment of the wheels. The opposite parties, on the other hand, would admit that the four tires were of the same size and the wheels were made of alloy. However, the spare tire was of a bit smaller size and the wheel was made of steel.
8. It is contended by the complainant that the rolling radius of the tire will never be less than the rim size. When wheels with different material combinations are used, there would be most likely behavioural changes during the rotation of the wheels.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on Exhibit A4 and argued that the alloy wheels are only for a temporary purpose to ply the vehicle to the nearest workshop and it is not intended to be used as a substitute for the normal tires and hence, the contention in this regard cannot be accepted. We have gone through page 7-20 in Exhibit A4 which reads as hereunder:-
“Your vehicle comes equipped with the temporary spare tire. It is only intended for temporary emergency use, until the conventional tire can be repaired or replaced. The inflation pressure of the temporary spare tire should be checked at least monthly. At the same time, check that the tire is stored securely. If it is not, tighten it.”
10. It is revealed from the above quoted recitals in Exhibit A4 that the emergency tire is different from an ordinary tire and it would not be used regularly. In view of the above, the apprehension of the complainant that when wheels with different material combinations are used, there would be most likely behavioural changes during the rotation of the wheels is unfounded, as the spare wheels are not intended to be used as a substitute for the other tires. It is also apposite to read the recitals in page 11-4 in Exhibit A4, which we extract as hereinbelow:-
“The spare wheel provided with alloy wheel variant is steel wheel rim, hence follow four tire rotation only”.
11. This would show that the spare wheel is not an alloy wheel but is made of steel. It is further clear from the said recitals in the manual that it cannot be used as a regular tire. From the above discussion, it is clear that the opposite parties supplied spare tire and wheel as provided under Exhibit A4 owner’s manual. This being the fact, we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. For the said reason, the finding of the District Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties cannot be sustained and consequently, we set aside the same.
In the result, these appeals stand allowed, the order passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 186/2018 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant in both the appeals shall be refunded to the respective appellant, on proper acknowledgment.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb
