BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 21^st day of August 2014

Filed on : 25-07-2012

PRESENT:

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.453/2012

Between

Raju Jacob,. : Complainant

Proprietor, K.P. Chacko Jewellery, (By Adv. Tom Joseph,

High Range Junction, Court road, Muvattupuzha)

Kothamangalam-686 691.

And

1. M/s. Michelin India Tyres, : Opposite parties

Door No. VI/410, (By Adv. Saji Isaac K.J.,

Vallamkottil Building, M/s. Kochhar & Co. Indian

Opp. Bharath Matha College, Chambers s(SICCI) Annex

Seaport Airport Road, Building, Ground Floor, No. 6,

Thrikkakara P.O., Espslanade, Chennai-600 108)

Kochi-682 028.

2. M/s. Cartonix Tyres,

Opp. PMS Workshop,

S.N. Building, College Road,

Kothamangalam-686 691.

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant purchased 4 Michelin tyres from the 2^nd opposite party on 08-03-2012 for Rs. 52,000/-. But within a short period, he noticed

bulging of front left side tyre. No tearing or any sign of piercing of any object is visible. The matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties. But they refused to replace the defective tyre. The act of the

opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The defective tyre is having internal defect and that is a manufacturing defect Moreover, the defective tyre had covered only 3000 kms. at the time of the occurrence of the defect as against the normal life span of the tyre of 25000 kms. The complainant is entitled for the refund of the price of the tyre of Rs. 13,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The complainant purchased 4 tyres from the 2^nd opposite party on

08-03-2012 for Rs. 52,000/- which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The alleged damage to the front left side tyre was caused due to road hazard and not due to any manufacturing defect. When the issue was brought to the notice of the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party and its own technical experts conducted a detailed examination on 04-06-2012 and prepared a detailed technical report based on which the complainant was informed that the damage caused to the said tyre was due to an impact with an object crushing the side wall of the tyre between the rim flange and the obstacles and not due to manufacturing defect. The damage caused to the tyre is not covered under the warranty. The complaint deserves dismissal.

3. The defense of the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

On receipt of the complaint from the complainant the 2^nd opposite party checked the tyre and found a bulging by the side of the tyre. The 2^nd opposite party informed the 1^st opposite party about the damaged tyre. The

Service engineer of the 1^st opposite party came and inspected the tyre and found that the damage occurred by a strong hit on a rock or a hard substance and not found any manufacturing defect. Still the 1^st opposite party has offered a discount on the next purchase of a new tyre, but the

complainant was not happy with it. The complaint about the tyre are to be taken care by the 1^st opposite party.

4. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exbt. A1 was marked on his side. The witnesses for the 1^st opposite party were examined as DWs 1 & 2 and Exbts. B1 to B4 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 2^nd opposite party. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.

5. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:

i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the

tyre from the opposite parties?

ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay the costs of the

proceedings to the complainant?

6. Point No. i. It is not in dispute that on 08-03-2012 the complainant purchased 4 tyres from the 2^nd opposite party at a total price of Rs. 52,000/- which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party evidenced by Exbt. A1 retail invoice. According to the complainant the front left side tyre became defective within a short span of time from the date of purchase, since the same suffers from internal defect that too when the tyre had covered only 3000 kms. the 1^st opposite party vehemently and vigorously contented that the tyre is free from any manufacturing defect and the defect has been caused due to road hazard. DWs 1 and 2 are the technical manager and senior Accounts manager of the 1^st opposite party. DWs 1 and 2 deposed before the Forum that they had no occasion to examine defective tyre in question. So the oral testimony of these witnesses may not help the 1^st opposite party to establish their contentions in this forum.

Exbt. B2 is the explanation issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant in furtherance of receipt of the complaint from the complainant in which they have extensively quoted their reasons for the repudiation of the claim of the complainant for refund of the price of the tyre. It is to be noted that DW1 has prepared Exbt. B2 without examining the tyre under dispute and Exbt. B4 is the tyre inspection report, even according to the 1^st opposite party it ;is prepared by one Mr. Sunil Nasser who has not mounted the box for reasons not stated or explained. In MRF Ltd. Vs. Sandipan Kishanrao Deshmukh & Anr 1 (2008) CPJ 165 (NC) held that

“We are of the opinion that having raised the plea in written version that damage to the tyre was due to concussion it was for the petitioner to have proved that plea. It is not in dispute that affidavit of Amar Dev Banerjee sales executive of the petitioner company who examined the tyre was not filed by way of evidence to prove the report at page 28. In this back drop we do not find any legality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Revision is therefore dismissed”.

7. In view of the above authority we are not to place any reliance in Exbt. B1 to B3. Exbt. B4 warranty is not binding on the complainant especially since the terms and conditions are in fine prints. It was so held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in

Blaze Hash Couriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rohit Adadidya &Anr. 1 (2008) CPJ 482 (NC).

8. Point No. ii. The complainant has had to approach this Forum to get his grievances redressed. Had the opposite parties considered the

genuine grievances of the complainant at the threshold, this complaint could have been awarded. Evidently a consumer has been wronged, costs of the proceedings is called for. We award Rs. 5,000/-.

9. Accordingly we allow this complaint and direct that

i. the opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund

Rs. 13,000/- being the price of the defective tyre to the

complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of

proceedings till realization.

ii. the opposite parties shall jointly and severally also pay

Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the

proceedings.

The above order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of August 2014.

Sd/-

A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

Appendix

Complainant’s exhibits :

Ext. A1 : Copy of retail invoice 08-03-2012

Opposite party’s exhibits :

Ext. B1 : Copy of attachment

B2 : Copy of letter dt. 25/09/2012

B3 : Copy of warranty

B4 : Copy of tyre inspection report

Depositions:

DW1 : Deepu S.,

DW2 : Prem Kumar N