BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 13th day of July 2018
Filed on : 10-08-2017
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.322/2017
Between
Paulose M.M., : Complainant
S/o. M.V. Mathew, (Party-in-person)
Maleril house,
Thiruvankulam P.O.,
Thiruvankulam Village,
Kanayannur Taluk,
Ernakulam,
House No. 492, Pin-682 305.
And
1. Manager, : Opposite parties
M/s. Peninsular Honda Pvt. Ltd., (1st O.P. By Adv. Jolly John, Biz and
Kundannoor P.O., Legis, Krishna Kripa, KSN Menon,
Vyttila, Kochi. Near South Over Bridge,
Ernakulam-16)
2. Administrator, (2nd o.p.by Adv. Syamnath J.G., Carmel
M/s. Micheline India Pvt. Ltd., Centre, Banerji road, Cochin-18)
Corporate Office, III Floor,
Orchid Business Park,
Sohna Road, Sector-48,
Gurgaon-122 002, Haryana.
Regd. Office:
Shyamala Towers,
3rd Floor, No. 136,
Arcot Road, Saligramam,
Chennai-600 093.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant purchased a Honda City Diesel car from the 1st opposite party . The said car was fitted with Michelin tyres manufacted by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant was informed that the said tyres would give mileage above 60,000 kmts. However, after using the car for about 25,000 kms. the car was showing bad driving comfort. Frequent wheel balancing and alignment checking were done but the tyre was showing fast wearing out . On 31-05-2017 the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and the tyres were sent to the 2nd opposite party with the complaint of unusually wearing out . Though the 2nd opposite party registered a complaint they refused to substitute the tyres on the ground that the explanation for the damage was not clear and the thread thickness was only 0.10mm . The car was being maintained properly and it was being used in good road. The complainant is entitled to get compensation for the consequential wear and tear of the entire parts and to get tyres replaced with the new one. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Both opposite parties filed separate versions resisting the claim.
3. According to the 1st opposite party the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the manufacturer of the vehicle is not in the party array. The 1st opposite party is only dealer and the tyre was not included in the warranty When the 1st opposite party was approached by the complainant with allegation of fast wearing of the tyres, the 1st opposite party checked the vehicle and found there was no problem with regard to the alignment and suspension. The 1st opposite party has no duty to replace the damaged tyres as it is not covered by the warranty provided by the manufacturer. The complaint is therefore sought to be dismissed.
3. The 2nd opposite party submitted through their version that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has willfully suppressed the usage of the vehicle . He was using the vehicle for commercial purposes and that he is not a consumer . On inspection of the tyre it was found that there was no manufacturing defects. The tyre inspection report does not mention of any other damages or defects to the product. The damaged tyre was due to the improper usage and could be a road hazard damage. Michelin warranty does not cover any damage caused by road hazard injury. The complaint was instituted on an experimental basis. There was no negligence or deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings, the following issues settled for consideration. .
I. Whether the complainant has proved that there was any manufacturing defects to the tyre and that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service.
ii. Reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence in this case consists of Exbts. A1 to A6 documents marked without oral evidence of the complainant. And Exbts. B1 and B2 on the side of the opposite party. In addition to the proof affidavit filed by O.P. 1.
6. Issue No. i. The complainant purchased a Honda City car on 30-07-2014 and as per Exbt. A6 series tax invoices , it is seen that the car was being regularly serviced at the 1st opposite party service centre. As on 30-06-2017 the car had covered 35,560 kms. Exbt. A2 series, two number are the photographs of the worn out tyres allegedly pertaining to the car purchased by the complainant. As on 01-06-2017 the date of inspection of the tyre by the 2nd opposite party the average remaining thread depth was 0.10 m.m. and the damage was clear according to them. Th complainant did not produce any documents to show that the tyre has manufacturer’s warranty against wearing out. Exbt. B2 produced by the opposite party would going to show that the battery, tyres and tubes are having warranty against defects in material and workmanship and are covered by the respective manufacture's warranty. All such cases should be referred to the respective manufacturer by the customer through the authorized dealer of the car manufacturer. The complainant did not produce any material to show that the tyre had any manufacturing defects. No expert examination was caused to be done at the instance of the complainant. The complainant has not produced the registration certificate of the car to prove that he was using the car as a private car, especially when the 1st opposite party had a case in their version that the car was being used for commercial purposes. In the above circumstances, we are unable to find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Issue is found against the complainant.
7. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i against the complainant we find that this complaint is liable to be dismissed. Therefore the complaint stands dismissed. No costs.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13th day of July 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 01-06-2017
A2 : Copy of photo of tyres
A3 : Copy of e-mail dt. 25-06-2017
A4 : Copy of Postal receipt
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 05-07-2017
A6 : Copy of tax invoice dt. 30-06-2017
Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
