Kerala

Idukki

CC/95/2016

Dileep Puthenpurayil - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director TDT Digital Filed - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Sooraj S Sivan

30 Apr 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :21/03/2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of April 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 95/2016

Between

Complainant : Dileep, S/o Viswanbharan,

Puthenpurayil House,

Memadange Kara, Aarakkuzha Village,

Muvattupuzha Taluk

(By Adv: Sooraj S.Sivan)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . The Managing Director,

T n T Digital Wheels,

Thekkedath Tower,

Bye Pass Junction,

Kanjiramattam Road, Thodupuzha,

Pin – 685 584.

2 . Appolo Tyres,

Perambra (R.O),

Thrissur District, Pin – 680 689.

(Both by Adv: K.M.Sanu)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant purchased two tyres from the first opposite party, for his Pick-Up van by paying Rs.12,600/- on 01/05/2015, manufactured by the second opposite party. At the time of purchase the first opposite party offered warranty of its tread life. The tyres got damaged within 5 months from the date of purchase. Immediately he intimated the matter to the first opposite party and entrusted the tyre with them as they demanded. The complainant further intimated by the first opposite party that, they sent the tyre to the second opposite party, the manufacturer for replacing it under warranty. When the complainant approached the first opposite party for getting back the

new tyre, the first opposite party informed him that, they cannot replace it

(Cont....2)

-2-

with new one or its purchase value. The complainant further averred that normally the tyre which he is using this vehicle get 32,000 KM life and the act of the opposite parties denying to replace the tyres in question under warranty is a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Against this the complainant filed this petition for directing the opposite parties to replace the damaged tyres with new tyres or else direct them to repay the purchase price of the tyre, further direct the opposite parties to pay cost and compensation.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance. The first opposite party filed reply version by challenging the maintainability of the complaint due to the non jointer of the manufacturer of the tyre, being a necessary party. The first opposite party further contented that they are only a dealer of the manufacturer and the company is offering the warranty and they are the only authority to take decision of it. The first opposite party further contented that they received the damaged tyres from the complainant and send it to its manufacturer with recommendation for speedy action and decision on warranty. The company tested the tyre in their lab and send it back to them along with lab report. The companies report reveals that there is no manufacturing defect on the tyre and they are not ready to replace it on warranty. This matter was intimated to the complainant in time. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After getting information about the manufacturer of the tyres, complainant filed a petition for impleading the manufacturer of the alleged tyres as additional second opposite party. The petition allowed and additional second opposite party impleaded.

 

The second opposite party also filed detailed reply version admitting the sale of tyre and its defects. The second opposite party further contented that the alleged tyres was forwarded to them by the first opposite party and these tyres were examined by their technical service engineer and found that the damages caused to the tyres are 'Rim Digging' which occurs due to tyre satting in the rim on account of low air pressure with heavy load and tyre got damaged'. Opposite parties further contented that they replaces any defective product in case of manufacturer defect only and no manufacturing defect was found in this case hence complainant was denied replacement. Hence there is no deficiency in service happened on the part of this opposite party and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(Cont....3)

-3-

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents. The bill dated 01/05/15 issued by the first opposite party is marked as Ext.P1. From the opposite parties side customer service engineer of the second opposite party examined as DW1. No documents produced.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

The Point:- We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the evidence. It is an admitted fact that, the complainant purchased two tyres from the first opposite party dealer of the second opposite party by paying Rs.12,600/- on 01/05/2015. Immediately after the purchase both these tyres got damaged and the complainant entrusted the tyres to the first opposite party. Further the first opposite party send it to the manufacturer with recommendation for speedy action and decision on warranty. From the reply version it is seen that the second opposite party is the authority to take decision on warranty, since they are offering the warranty.

 

On perusing the version of the second opposite party, it is seen that they examined the alleged tyres with their Technical Service Engineer who are properly trained in tyre technology. Upon their examination of the tyres, the said engineer did not find any manufacturing defect in the tyres. The cause of failure given in their rejection report was as “Rim Digging” which occurs due to tyre satting in the rim on account of low air pressure with heavy load and tyre got damaged. This is the opinion of the technical experts of the second opposite party and as per the version of the second opposite party, this was reported along with the reply version. For establishing their version, one Ajith Krishnan, Customer Service Engineer of the second opposite party examined as DW1. On cross examination he specifically stated that "ഇതിന് rim digging എന്ന തകരാർ ആയിരുന്നു. അത് പരിശോധിച്ചു മനസ്സിലാക്കിയതാണ്. ആ പരിശോധനാ റിപ്പോർട്ട് വാദിയ്ക്ക് കൊടുത്തിട്ടുണ്ട്, അത് കോടതിയിൽ ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല.” Even though the second opposite party stated in their version regarding the expert opinion of the damage of the alleged tyres,

(Cont....4)

-4-

no evidence is produced before the Forum to fortify their plea. Hence absence of specific and concrete evidence in this matter, Forum is not in a position to admit the version of the opposite parties. More over neither of the opposite parties has a case that they returned the damaged tyres to the complainant along with test report. Till the time the tyres are with the second opposite party due to that complaint failed to produces it before the Forum. The second opposite party has not denied the warranty of the tyre which they manufactured, and the damage happened to the tyre in question is also within the warranty period. This matter is also not denied by the opposite parties 1 and 2.

 

Hence on the basis of above discussion Forum is of a considered view that the purchase of the tyres and its damage and its warranty are not denied by the opposite parties 1 and 2. Even though the second opposite party stated the reason for tyre damage no corresponding evidence is produced before the Forum to substantiating their plea. Under this circumstances the Forum found that, the act of the opposite parties are gross deficiency in service. Being a manufacturer of the subject matter tyres, the second opposite party is bound to replace it or else the second opposite party is bound to return the amount of the tyres to the complainant.

 

Hence the complaint allowed. The second opposite party is directed to replace two new tyres to the complainant of the same category as alleged in the complaint or else the second opposite party is directed to return an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Since the complainant is used the tyres for 5 months after deducting its depreciation, along with Rs.2000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default till its realization.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of April, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

(Cont....5)

-5-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Ajith Krishnan

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The bill dated 01/05/15 issued by the first opposite party

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT