By  Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar,  Member :

                   The case of the complainant is that on  8-11-16, he purchased  4  MICHELIN tyres manufactured by the 1^st  opposite party , from the 2^nd opposite party for his Innova car ,  on payment of Rs.24000/-.But, when the complainant started using the same ,cracks started appearing in all the four tyres  and the portions  started peeling off. According to the complainant, this is a manufacturing defect. The complainant , therefore ,approached the 2^nd opposite party and showed the defects .But , they were not ready , either to replace the tyres or refund the money      .Hence the complaint filed , with prayers , to repay Rs.24000/- together with interest   from the date of purchase , along with compensation and cost.

                   2.In the version filed the 1^st opposite party states that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the 1^st opposite party, since the transactions between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party are not known to the 1^st opposite party and hence not admitted. The petition is without any basis and is not maintainable, since the complainant has not disclosed the purpose of the usage of the vehicle. However, on receiving the complaint, the tyre was inspected thoroughly, on behalf of the 1^st opposite party, by a team of technical experts and a tyre inspection report dated 14-03-17 was prepared. As per the report  , the only damage reported was ‘’ Non –penetrating cut on the tyre’s tread area , caused by an external object , which falls under the category of ‘’Road Hazard Damage’’. The report makes it clear that the damage to the tyres was not a result of design, workmanship or material and is purely related to the usage condition of tyres. The warranty as regards the tyres manufactured by the 1^st opposite party doesn’t cover any damage caused by road hazard injury such as cuts, snag, bruise, impact damage, puncture, repair failures and other tyre usage related damages. In the reply issued to the complainant dated 14-03-17, all these facts, along with a detailed tyre inspection report citing the defects and the reasons for it were included.

                   3.The points for consideration are

1. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. If so , compensation and cost

                   4.The 2^nd opposite party has been absent and hence set ex-parte .Evidence consists of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and counter proof affidavit filed by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant has filed evidences marked as Ext. P1 to P4 and the 1st opposite party has filed evidences marked as  exhibits  R1 & R2.Ext. P1 is the invoice no 981/8-11-16  for Rs.24000/- ; Ext. P2& P3  are  the copy of the letters of the 1^st opposite party company to the complainant , in response to his  complaint no’s  CLKL 1701311296 & CLKL 1702060263   ;Ext. P4 series  is the copies of the tyre ,marked  subject to proof ; Ext. R1 is stated to be the technical report of the experts appointed by the opposite parties ; Ext. R2 is the letter of authorization.

                   5.Ongoing through the  records of the case ,it can be seen that the argument of the complainant is that  when he started using the tyres , cracks started appearing on all the four tyres and the portions started peeling off .According to the 1^st opposite party company ,the damage to the tyres occurred due to non-penetrating cut on the tyre’s tread area ,caused by the penetration of an external object, which falls under the category of ‘’Road Hazard Damage’’.  The opposite party has states that  the above is based on the report of technical experts of the company.

                   6.The Forum has studied all aspects of the case in detail .The Forum is of opinion that ,since the opposite party is of the argument that the damage comes under the category of ‘’Road Hazard Damage ‘’, it is for the complainant to prove that the damage is not due to the above reason ,but due to manufacturing defect. For the purpose, he should have taken steps to get the tyres inspected by the competent expert authorities in the matter or through the Rubber Board. However, the complainant has failed to take any steps in the matter.

                   7.Considering the above, the complaint stands dismissed

                      Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 28^th day  of        March 2018.

        Sd/-                                                                                  Sd/-

M.P.Chandrakumar                                                       P.K.Sasi,                         

Member                                                                         President.                                                             

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

Ext. P1 Invoice no. 981/8-11-16  for Rs.24000/- ;

Ext. P2& P3  - copy of the letters of the 1^st opposite party company to the complainant

Ext. P4 series  -  copies of the tyre  marked  subject to proof      

Opposite Party’s Exhibits

Ext. R1 Technical report of the experts appointed by the opposite parties ; Ext. R2 Letter of authorization.

                                                                                          Id/-

                                                                                      Member