By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Complaint in short is as follows:-
1. The complainant is the registered owner of KL-10 –AT 2579 Hyundai Elite i 20 car which is purchased from Classic Hyundai Private Limited Malappuram. He registered a complaint before opposite party on 25/01/2016 regarding excessive wear and tear to four wheels of his car and on 27/01/2016 the technician of first opposite party came and examined and found that the complaint of the tyres was due to camper is out of the vehicle. It was told that they cannot entertain the complaint since the reason for complaint is not covered by warranty condition.
2. The complainant was regular in checkup of wheels and the alignment from the second opposite party and during that occasion never it was told the issue of camper out. The complainant enquired about this issue and learned that only after correcting the issue of camper out the work of wheel alignment can be entertained. The complainant took his vehicle to the classic Hyundai service centre on 08/02/2016 after the examination by the technician of first opposite party on 27/01/2016 and it was told that there was no such issue of camper out. The complainant submit that he is under the impression that the machine of the second opposite party is defective and on that reason the defect of tyres noted as camper is out. The first opposite party refused the claim on the basis of report regarding camper out. The complainant submit that he has not done any work to correct the issue of the camper out during the entire service period. The second opposite party carried out the work of wheel alignment with the ill motive of grabbing money from the complainant which is deficiency in service and exploitation of consumer.
3. The complainant submitted that the first opposite party had agreed minimum guaranty of 30000 KM for the tyres but even finishing 16900 KM all the four wheels of the car became defective and which is due to manufacturing defect and deficiency in service. The allegation of the complainant is that the first opposite party repudiated his claim due to the mistake occurred in recording the reason by the second opposite party. In the circumstances the first and second opposite parties are equally liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency in service and thereby caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. The complainant prays for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and refund of Rs. 1,200/- (Rupees one thousand only) which was realized towards service charge by the second opposite party. Complainant also pray for replacement of four wheels or the cost of the wheels along with cost of proceedings Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only).
4. On admission of the complaint issued notice to opposite parties and they entered appearance and filed version in detail.
5. The first opposite party denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint and submitted that there is no expert opinion to substantiate the allegations in the complaint and he has not produced any evidence to show that tyres in question suffers from the manufacturing related defect. The opposite party submitted that no cause of action was aroused against first opposite party and contended that on receipt of complaint from the complainant regarding wear and tear to the four tyres of his vehicle deputed a technical expert Mr. Rimnesh who is an experienced person and he found that the defect was not related to manufacturing one. It is submitted that on the day of inspection by technical expert the tyres were found not covered under warranty policy. The technical expert found that there was having excessive one sided wear / irregular wear/uneven wear which occur due to various factors such as miss alignment of tyres, geometric disturbance in wheel alignment, loose / worn out suspension components, severe coronary, improper tyre rotation, use on high crowed roads and improper tyre mounting. The above situations are not covered under the warranty condition of the opposite party No.1. Therefore the claim of the complainant rightly rejected by the technical expert as not covered under the warrantable condition /warranty policy of the opposite party No.1.
6. The contention of the second opposite party is that the entire averments in the complaint is not correct and the averments that the vehicle was brought to the second opposite party for the wheel alignments, that during the wheel alignment not mentioned about camper out, the wheel alignment can be done only after clearing the camper out complaint, it was said that classic Hyundai opined there was no issue of camper out , due to defective machine used by the second opposite party it was reported camper out , on the basis of report given by the second opposite party the first opposite party refused to replace the defective tyres etc are totally denied by the second opposite party . The second opposite party submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle one or two occasions for wheel alignment and the right information was furnished to the complainant in a receipt. It is submitted that camper out of the vehicle is a manufacturing defect of vehicle and due to that reason wear and tear can be caused to tyres and rectifying the defect of camper out resting on manufacturer of vehicle. Hence there is defect of non-joinder of necessary parties to the complaint. It is also submitted that there is no warranty or guaranty for wheel alignment and the second opposite party using well known machine namely ‘Hunter’ for the wheel alignment. It is also submitted that a vehicle after wheel alignment can be caused missing or variation in wheel alignment with in short span of time and which depends on driving and as well as condition of the road etc. Hence the opposite party denies the liability for wear and tear alleged by the complainant and submitted that he had under taken only one or two alignment work. The contention of the complainant that he has not taken the vehicle for the issue of camper out at any point of time is correct, and then it is the fault on the side of complainant. It is also submitted that while examining the vehicle by classic Hyundai it was told that the camper is not out is false. The opposite party also denied the averment that the first opposite party dishonoured the claim of the complainant solely because of the statement given by second opposite party regarding the issue of camper is out. So, the contention of the second opposite party is that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed.
7. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents in lieu of evidence, both side filed notes of argument also. The documents produced on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is spot inspection report dated 27-01-2016 of Mr. Rimnesh .Ext. A2 is cash invoice dated 08-02-2016. Ext. A3 is copy of wheel alignment report dated 25/11/2015. The documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B3. Ext. B1 is copy of warranty. Ext. B2 is photo copy of spot inspection report. Ext. B3 is tyre condition analysis guide of ITTAC. Ext. C1 is marked as details of service history of the vehicle produced from Classic Hyundai, Malappuram regarding vehicle No.KL 10AT- 2579. Witness Mr Rimnesh, expert technician examined as DW1 on the side of opposite party.
8. The following points arise for consideration: -
- Whether the tyres involved in the complaint has got manufacturing defect?
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
9. Point No.1 & 2
The grievance of the complainant is that there was excessive wear and tear to the tyres of the vehicle which are manufactured by first opposite party. He purchased a new Hyundai Elite i20 car from classic Hyundai Pvt. Ltd. Malappuram and he was using the vehicle in a most careful manner. He complaint to the first opposite party on 25-01-2016 and on 27-01-2016 an expert from opposite party No.1 came and examined the tyres and reported that the excessive wear and tear of the tyres was due to camper of the vehicle is out and that is not included in the warranty issued by the opposite party No.1. The complainant was regular in checking the tyre alignment with opposite party No.2 but they never reported any defect regarding the camper. Actually, wheel alignment has to be carried only after clearing the defect of camper. The complainant thereafter approached Classic Hyundai on 08-02-2016 from where the vehicle was bought and from there he was told that there is no complaint to the camper and no maintenances is required for the same. Hence the contention of the complainant is that the reason for excessive wear and tear to the tyres are manufacturing defect and deficiency in service of opposite parties.
10. The contention of the first opposite party is that on receipt of complaint from the complainant on 25-01-2016 the opposite party deputed a technical expert Mr. Rimnesh.V who is having experience of three years in the tyre industry to inspect the said tyres. He found that there was excessive one sided wear/ irregular wear/uneven wear in the said tyres which was not a manufacturing related issue. He noticed on the day of inspection that is on 27-01-2016 the tyres in question had already covered a distance of 16900 Kilometres. As such the defects found to tyres were not covered under the warranty condition or warranty policy of the opposite party No.1. So the submission of the opposite party is that the grievance of the complainant was addressed within one working day and disposed the same in terms with the warranty policy of the opposite party No.1. So, the contention is that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of first opposite party.The expert has reported that the one-sided wear /irregular wear / uneven wear which may occur due to various factors such as misalignment of tyres, geometric disturbances in wheel alignment, loose /worn out suspension components, severe cornering, improper tyre rotation, use on high crowned roads and improper tyre mounting. As per the warranty condition the defect of the tyre are not covered in the above mentioned situations.
11. The grievance of the complainant against opposite party No.2 is that complainant was regular in checking wheel alignment from the second opposite party but no time the second opposite party stated that there is defect of camper as out of the vehicle and the suppression of the same by the second opposite party was with the object of grabbing money from the complainant. The complainant on the basis of refusal of the claim approached Classic Hyundai Malappuram from whom the vehicle was purchased and on their examination it was told that there is no defect of camper as out as stated by the second opposite party. So the grievance of the complainant against second opposite party is that the first opposite party refused the claim on the basis of false report given by the second opposite party. Moreover he is under the impression the report of the second opposite party is due to the defective machine used for checking the wheel alignment. The second opposite party submitted that he had only occasions of one or two to do wheel alignments of the complainant vehicle and also contended that the complainant might had done wheel alignments from other places also. It is contented by second opposite party that the effect of wheel alignment can be changed in a short span of time itself and that there is no warranty or guaranty for the wheel alignment. Hence the contention of the complainant that the second opposite party is liable for the wear and tear of the tyres of the complainant is baseless and not sustainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
12. Now it can be seen that the issue is that whether the wear and tear of the tyres of the complainant vehicle is due to manufacturing defect of tyre or due to the issue of camper out of the vehicle, which is a manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The complainant is under the impression the tyre has got manufacturing defect and also the instrument used for wheel alignment by the second opposite party is also defective. The second opposite party alleged camper is out of the vehicle and that was the reason according to them for the excessive wear and tear of the tyres of the complainant. The complainant rely upon the report obtained from the Classic Hyundai Malappuram, from whom the vehicle was bought by the complainant and the finding of Classic Hyundai was that there was no defect of camper out of the vehicle and no service for the same was required. So the complainant is under the impression tyres are with manufacturing defect which is covered by the warranty and thereby the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation or to replace the tyres as prayed in the complaint.
13. It can be seen that both the issues related to camper out of the vehicle and manufacturing defect of tyres require expert opinion. It is the duty of the complainant to establish the allegation of manufacturing defect of tyre as pleaded in the complaint. The complainant has not taken any steps to establish the tyres were having manufacturing defect. The document produced and marked as Ext. A1 is none other than the spot inspection report conducted by the expert deputed by the first opposite party on receipt of complaint dated 25-01-2016 and the date of inspection is 27-01-2016. The opposite party also produced the same document which is marked as Ext. B2. In addition to that it can be seen that the expert was examined before the Commission as DW1. He has deposed before the Commission as follows:-
14. “ടയറിന്റെക്വാളിറ്റി പരിശോധിക്കണമെങ്കിv ആയതിന്റെ റബ്ബറിന്റെ ക്വാളിറ്റി പരിശോധിക്കേണ്ടതായിട്ടുണ്ട്. ക്വാളിറ്റി പരിശോധിക്കാതിരിക്കാന് പ്രത്യേകിച്ച് കാരണങ്ങള് ഉണ്ട് . ടയറിന് Irregular wear ആയതിനാലാണ് മറ്റു പരിശോധനകw നടത്താതിരുന്നത്” except the deposition and the A1 and B2 document there is nothing before the Commission to see whether the tyres were with manufacturing defect or not. The opposite party also produced Ext. B3 in support of their contention which is a guide to analyse the tyre condition issued by ITTAC –a none – profit organization, consisting of technical representatives of tyres, tube, valve and rim manufacturing companies in India. In the light of above fact, it can be concluded that the complainant has failed in establishing the tyre was with manufacturing defect. The opposite party has got a contention the defect of camper as out is a manufacturing defect of the vehicle and to establish the same the complainant should have made the manufacturer of the vehicle as a party in the proceedings and so there is defect of non- joinder of necessary parties. The second opposite party has got a specific contention that they are using “Hunter” one of the world’s good wheels aligning machinery. The condition of roads and driving will definitely affect the alignment of the vehicle at the very moment it is aligned. It is also a well-known fact that there is no guaranty for the service of wheel alignment. On perusal of C1 document it can be seen that wheel alignment was done from the Classic Hyundai on various occasions also.
15. The first opposite party contented that immediately on receipt of a complaint without any delay deputed qualified technical expert to examine the grievance of the complaint as alleged and so they claims no negligence and no deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party .
16. In the light of above facts and circumstances the commission finds that the complainant failed to establish manufacturing defects to the tyres as well as deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and we find first and second point accordingly.
The consideration of the third point does not arise in the light of above findings on points one and two.
Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 14th dayof January, 2022.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
