D.O.F:31/01/2019
D.O.O:20/08/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.24/2019
Dated this, the 20th day of August 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Nashwa Moideen Ashraf,
W/o Moideen Ashraf,
New Rahmath Manzil, : Complainant
B.T. Road, Uppala,
Kasaragod – 671322
(Adv: K. Kumaran Nair & Sabari L.S)
And
The Proprietor,
EVM Autocraft India Pvt, Ltd,
Angel’s Plaza, Building No. XXIII/649 – A1, : Opposite Party
N.H.47, T.V.S.Junction, South Kalamassery
Eranakulam – 682022
(Adv:Benny Jose)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended)
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased a BMW car from the Opposite Party show room on 31-08-2017, for full payment of its price. At the time of booking the Opposite Party assured that the tyres of the car is of superior quality and manufactured in Germany. But within a few months of taking delivery of the car it was noticed that the tyres of the car are of inferior quality and the same was intimated to the Opposite Party. As apprehended by the complainant, on 04-12-2017, one of the four tyres of the vehicle bursted and the family of the complainant were stranded on the way. The Opposite Party was intimated about the matter and a service man came and took the vehicle to their shop at Cochin for service and repair. The vehicle was taken to the garage by driving with defective tyres. Three days after the vehicle was returned after changing 3 defective tyres. Thereafter on 12-12-2017 the complainant noticed that the tyres were obling and the same was timely intimated to the Opposite Party. On 21-01-2018 the complainant sent the photos of the defective tyres to the Opposite Party. The tyres found to be bulged out on either sidewall due to formation of air packet to considerable size. The opposite party sent a representative of Good year tyres to inspect the vehicle and said that there is nothing wrong with the tyres. Therefore the complainant took the vehicle to an expert surveyor Mr. Praveen Chandra Shetty and after inspection he has opined the bounding material of the sidewall of the tyres was made of single layer rayon gave way that resulted in air pockets on the front right rear tyres, within its warranty period. He also opined that tube less Ru Flat tyres are not suitable on Indian roads on which unscientific speed brakes , rambles and path holes are rampant. On the basis of the expert report, the complainant issued a lawyer notice dated 31-03-2018 to the Opposite Party and called upon to replace the tyres and to pay compensation. But the Opposite Party did not comply with the demands but sent a reply raising baseless allegations. The contentions of the Opposite Party to the effect that the complainant handled the vehicle negligently and carelessly and that the way to the residence of the complainant is a broken road are totally incorrect. The husband of complainant is a seasoned businessman he has been using the vehicle very carefully. The residence of the complainant is very close to the NH Way and the the courtyard and entrance are paved with interlocks. As the complainant found it unsafe to use the vehicle with the said vehicle with defective tyres, he changed the original tyres with new and good quality Bridge stone tyres, by spending Rs.94,883/-and the Opposite Party is legally liable to pay the above amount. The Opposite Party supplied defective and poor quality tyres to the BMW car purchased by the complainant by paying full price. The act of the Opposite Party amounts to unfair trade practice and service deficiency, due to which the complainant suffered great mental agony and monetary loss. Hence this complaint is filed seeking compensation and costs.
The Opposite Party entered appearance through their counsel who filed written Version. As per the version of the Opposite Party, the complaint is false ,frivolous and not maintainable in law. The Opposite Party admitted the purchase of the BMW car by the complainant but denied all other allegations. The Opposite Party submit that they have supplied high quality tyres manufactured by Good year as provided by global standards .No other tyre is fitted to the BMW cars other than Good year. The complainant reported the bursting of one tyres and bulging of two tyres. Considering the standards of Indian roads, BMW offers free advance insurance policy for one . On 25-11-2017 the vehicle was taken for service and after replacing of 4 tyres, the vehicle was returned on 4-12-2017. The bulging of the tyre was not due to any manufacturing defect, but due to the rough handling. The road from the house of the complainant to the highway is totally damaged and the complaint on the tyre may be due to bad condition of the road. The representative of the tyre manufacturer Good year inspected the tyres and reported that the bulging of the tyres is due to the rough use or road hazards. The representative of the complainant also convinced and signed in spot inspection report.
There is no manufacturing defects in the tyres .The tyre supplied by the Opposite Party is suit for Indian road .The bulges in tyres can occur when sidewall become damaged , which is often caused by impact from kerbing or from potholes in the road. The structural integrity of the tyre side the wall is the weak end and the internal pressure creates a visible bulge. A lumb or bulge usually indicate that the tyre has been internally damaged.
There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. The case is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the Opposite Party is not the manufacturer of the BMW cars. The complainant is liable to be dismissed.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1 . Whether there is any unfair trade practice or service deficiency on the part of the
opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the relief ?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that the Opposite Party supplied defective and poor quality tyres to the BMW car purchased by the complainant by paying full price amount.
The act of the Opposite Party amounts to unfair trade practice and service deficiency, due to which the complainant suffered great mental agony and monetary loss . Hence this complaint is filed seeking compensation and costs.
As per the version of the Opposite Party it is submitted that they have
supplied high quality tyres manufactured by Good year as provided by global standards .No other tyre is fitted to the BMW cars other than Good year. The complainant reported the bursting of one tyres and bulging of two tyres. Considering the standards of Indian roads, BMW offers a free advance insurance policy for one.
The complainant states that within a few months of taking delivery of the car it was noticed that the tyres of the car are of inferior quality and the same was intimated to the Opposite Party. As apprehended by the complainant, on 04-12-2017, one of the four tyres of the vehicle bursted and the family of the complainant were stranded on the way. The Opposite Party was intimated about the matter and a service man came and took the vehicle to their shop at Cochin for service and repair. The vehicle was taken to the garage by driving with defective tyres. Three days after the vehicle was returned after changing 3 defective tyres. There after on 12-12-2017 the complainant noticed that the tyres were obling and the same was timely intimated to the op. On 21-01-2018 the complainant sent the photos of the defective tyres to the Opposite Party. The tyres found to be bulged out on either side wall due to formation of air packet to considerable size. The opposite party sent a representative of Good year tyre to inspect the vehicle and said that there is nothing wrong with the tyres. Therefore the complainant took the vehicle to an expert surveyor Mr. Praveen Chandra Shetty and after inspection he has opined the bounding material of the side wall of the tyres was made of single layer rayon gave way that resulted in air pockets on the front right rear tyres , within its warranty period. He also opined that tubeless Run Flat tyres are not suitable on Indian roads on which unscientific speed brakes, rambles and path holes are rampant.
The Opposite Party argues that on 25-11-2017 the vehicle was taken for service and after replacing of 4 tyres, the vehicle was returned on 4-12-2017. The bulging of the tyre was not due to any manufacturing defect ,but due to the rough handling. The road from the house of the complainant to the highway is totally damaged and the complaint on the tyre may be due to bad condition of the road. The representative of the tyre manufacturer Good year inspected the tyres and reported that the bulging of the tyres is due to rough use or road hazards. The representative of the complainant also convinced and signed in spot inspection report. There is no manufacturing defects in the tyres .The tyre supplied by the Opposite Party is suit for Indian road .The bulges in tyres can occur when sidewall become damaged ,which is often caused by impact from kerbing or from potholes in the road. The structural integrity of the tyre side wall is weak end and the internal pressure creates a visible bulge. A lump or bulge usually indicates that the tyre has been internally damaged.
So the main dispute in this case is regarding the cause of the damage seen to the tyres. According to the complainant it is due to the poor quality of the tyres, where as the Opposite party argues that it is due to the negligent and careless handling of the vehicle by the complainant and broken condition of the road from his residence. The Opposite Party submitted that they have supplied high quality tyres manufactured by Good year as provided by global standards . No other tyre is fitted to the BMW cars other than Good year. The complainant reported the bursting of one tyres and bulging of two tyres. Considering the standards of Indian roads, BMW offers a free advance insurance policy for one.
In this case, none of the parties took steps in this case to get an expert openion regarding the quality of the tyres. The complainant produced and marked a document Ext.A3 , which is a report by Mr. Praveen Chandra Shetty, who claims to have inspected the tyres on 14-03-2018 as per the request by the complainant before filing this complaint. As per the opinion of by Mr. Praveen Chandra Shetty, the bonding material of side wall made of single layer rayon gave way that resulted in air packets, on Front Right & Rear Right tyres, within its warranty period. The tubeless Run Flat Tyres are not suitable on Indian Roads on which unscientific speed breakers, Ramblers and potholes are rampant. Manufacturer of this luxury cars should have carried out in depth research before installation of this German make Run Flat Tubeless Tyres that are not suitable for vehicles that are sold in India . Further the complainant states that their residence is very close to the NH Way and the courtyard and entrances are paved with interlocks.
The Opposite Party did not adduce any reliable evidence to show that the damage seen to the tyres is due to the negligent and careless handling of the vehicle by the complainant and broken condition of the road from his residence. In the absence of any reliable evidence it can be concluded that the damages caused to the tyres of the BMW car during warranty period is due to the poor quality of the tyre supplied by the Opposite Parties. Selling a car with tyres of poor and substandard quality, by receiving huge amount and assuring that the tyres of the car is of superior quality is unfair trade practice and service deficiency.
Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case this commission is of the view that there is service deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships. The Opposite party is liable to compensate for the damage caused to the complainant. The complainant states that since she found it unsafe to use the vehicle with the said vehicle with defective tyres, she changed the original tyres with new and good quality Bridge stone tyres, by spending Rs.94,883/-and the Opposite Party is legally liable to pay the above amount. She has produced the Ext. A5 tax invoice for that. Further the complainant estimate the damages suffered by her by way of mental agony and hard ships to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, but she has not produced any documents for such a huge loss .This commission is of the view that Rs. 50,000/- would be a reasonable compensation.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties directed to pay Rs.94,883/- towards the expense for changing of tyres together with Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs to the complainant .
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Lawyers Notice
A2- Reply notice Dt: 17/04/2018
A3- Copy of the inspection report
A4- Bill Dt: 03/04/2018 Rs. 3250/-
A5- Bill Dt: 31/10/2018
Witness Examined
Pw1- Moideen Ashraf
Pw2- Praveenchandra shetty
Dw1- Joby Thomas
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
