cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 13th day of February 2013
Filed on : 15/11/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 638/2011
Between
M/s. Subhashini Viswambharan, : Complainant
7/297, Karottuparambu house, (By Adv. K.G. Sarath Kumar,
Kumbalanghi, Ernakulam, Broadway, Cochin-31)
Pin-682 007.
And
1. M/s. Concorde Motors : Opposite parties
(India) Ltd., 10,256/C,
Survey No. 1562/1, Nettoor, (By Adv. V. Krishna Menon,
Maradu, Cochin-682 304. HRS Complex, SRM Road,
Kochi-682 018)
2. M/s. Tata Motors Ltd.,
Passenger Car Business Unit,
Fores, 5th Floor, Dr. B.B. Gandhi Marg,
Fort, Mumbai-400 023.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 29-08-2011 the complainant purchased a car from the 1st opposite party. After 3 weeks from the date of purchase of the car the complainant noticed air leakage in the front wheel. The complainant intimated the 1st opposite party and got it repaired. Even after that the air leakage persisted. On 29-09-2011 at the instance of the 1st opposite party, the complainant entrusted the defective wheel with the tyre with them. Though the 1st opposite party agreed to replace the same with a defect free one they did not do so. On 24-10-2011 the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the 1st opposite party requesting to replace the tyre. The 1st opposite party received the same but not responding. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to deliver a new wheel with tyre together with a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the 1st opposite party.
As per the warranty conditions the manufacturer of the tyre would be liable for the defect of the same. The manufacturer of the tyre is not a party to the proceedings. On receipt of the complaint the 1st opposite party forwarded the disputed tyre to the service centre of the manufacturer of the tyre. After this inspection they rejected the claim of the complainant as per their report dated 24-10-2011 stating that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre and the alleged complaint regarding air leak was on account of an external object having pierced in the tyre. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
3. The 2nd opposite party filed a separate version raising similar contentions that of the 1st opposite party.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the
defective tyre and wheel?
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation
to the complainant?
6. Point No. i. Admittedly on 29-08-2011 the complainant purchased a brand new car from the 1st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party evident from Ext. A3 sale certificate.
6. According to the complainant since one of the tyres suffered from defect she entrusted the defective tyre and wheel with the 1st opposite party on 29-09-2011 to get it replaced in spite of her attempt to have it repaired which did not materialise on account of which she had to entrust the same with the 1st opposite party. It is stated that the opposite parties failed to do so within the warranty period. On the contrary the opposite parties vehemently contended that they are not responsible for the defect if any of the tyre since as per the warranty condition the manufacturer of the tyre alone is responsible for the same.
7. It is pertinent to note that neither parties did produce the warranty terms in this Forum for our perusal for reasons whatever. Though the opposite parties stated that the manufacturer of the tyres rejected the request of the complainant to replace the tyre since it was free from any manufacturing defect, no evidence is on record to substantiate the same. Moreover at the instance of the complainant vide order dated 27-07-2012 in I.A. No. 453/2012 this Forum directed the opposite parties to produce the disputed tyre with the wheel in this Forum on or before 17-08-2012 wherein they failed for reasons not stated. Had the opposite parties produced the same in this Forum the complainant could have got an opportunity to subject the same to inspection of an expert.
8. In the above circumstances the rejection of the complainant’s claim during the warranty period and the subsequent failure on the part of the opposite parties to produce the same in this Forum amounts to grievous deficiency in service beyond explanation.
9. Matters being so facts not controverted let alone this Forum any one of a sensible nature would be at a loss not to approach an authority for redressal of their grievance. The complainant rightly has conformed in her approach to the right remedy.
10. Instances having been put the complainant unnecessary litigation and inconveniences which could have been avoided in the first instance by any reasonable opposite party basically calls for legal compensation if not awarded which would give rise only to singular and unwarranted cases which is illafordable by any legal Forum. We fix it at Rs. 3,000/-. It may be a popular or even accepted concept that such cases should be judged with no leniency. But bowing before the higher wisdom of the Higher Courts this Forum does not wish to transgress the rule of law.
11. In the result, we pass the following order:
The opposite parties shall jointly and severally replace the defective tyre with a new one and handover the same with its wheel. The opposite parties are at liberty to retain the defective tyre. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant towards compensation.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12 p.a. till payment.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13th day of February 2013
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of lawyer notice dt. 24-10-2011
A2 : A.D. Card
A3 : Copy of sale certificate dt. 29-08-2011
A4 : Copy of job slip dt. 29-09-2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : Nill
Deposition
PW1 : K.Y Subhashini
