(Per Honble SMT. C. NIRMALA, MEMBER, on behalf of the bench)
1. This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying this Forum to direct the Opposite Parties for replacement of the defective tyre or compensate the cost of the tyre which amounts to Rs.10,000/- to pay Rs.2,00,000/- compensation and damages for causing mental agony and costs and expenses of Rs.25,000/- and to pay subsequent interest till the date of realization.
2. The facts of the Complaint in brief are as follows:- The Complainant L.Indira Devi purchased a Hyundai i20 sportz crdl BSIV car from the Opposite Party No.2 on 11-10-2014, with engine No.D4FCEM217451 and Chassis No. MALBM51RLEM028214*J, for a consideration of Rs.6,62,134/-. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 delivered the car with fitted tyres of size/pattern 195/55 R16, SKU Detail; WBR, Manufactured by Goodyear, the opposite party No.1 herein. The Complainant submits that having purchased the car, she started using it till recently before she observed a bulge on the side wall of one of the tyres of the car. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 with the said complaint that there is a bulge in one of the tyres of the car and requested for replacement of the said defective tyre. The Opposite Party No.2 in return referred the complaint to the Opposite Party No.1 who is a manufacturer of the tyres. It was also informed to the Complainant that the tyres have manufacturing warranty of 5 years or till the tyre tread is worn upto TWI (Tread wear indicators) whichever is earlier. One engineer on behalf of the opposite party No.1, inspected the tyres of the Complainants car and rejected the claim of the Complainant on an illegal, arbitrary and fictitious ground observing that the Tyre does not suffer from any manufacturing defect, hence not adjustable. Vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has filed the present complaint praying for a direction as mentioned supra.
3. In the written version filed by the Opposite Party No.1, it is submitted that the Complainant has herself admitted in the complaint that the alleged defect in the tyre in question is a bulge on the side wall. It is pertinent to mention that manufacturing defect cannot be attributed for the Bulging of a tyre as the same is caused by not giving due consideration to obvious road hazards and exercising due diligence while driving a vehicle over the pot holes/kerbs/bumps/debris on the road/ railway crossings and/or impact by external object as is evident from the spot inspection Report, dated October 05th 2015 of the Technical Expert Mr.Suresh Kumar, which clearly lays down that Tyre checked does not suffer from any manufacturing condition hence not adjustable sidewall damage due to impact/bruise break. It is stated that Bulging of a tyre is not the result of manufacturing defect. In fact, due to strong external impact on the tyre, the structural integrity of a tyre is impacted/damaged (breakage of Ply card) and the air pressure within the tyres creates a visible bulge at the impact location. It is pertinent to mention that when a tyre hits a sharp object in the road, the force from the weight and speed of the vehicle is focused in the small area of contact which compresses the tyre enough that the inside of the sidewall is pinched and damaged causing a small hole in the inside tyre liner layer which is nothing but a transfer of the impact force to the inside of the tyre. The impact can also damage the sidewall cords and significantly weaken the tyre. It is submitted that a tyre is a rubber product which can be damaged at any point of time. It is a well settled principle that life of a tyre depends upon the skill of the driver of the vehicle as well as the kind and quality of roads on which they are driven. Not giving due consideration to obvious road hazards and not exercising due diligence while driving the vehicle over pot holes/kerbs/bumps/debris on the roads/railway crossings and/or impact by external objects will not provide the tyre the expected life. It is submitted that had there been a manufacturing defect in the first place, it would have come to light within the initial months of use itself, and not after one year since the purchasing of the car. The Opposite Party No.1 on receipt of complaint on October 05th, 2015 deputed a Technical Expert, Mr.Suresh Kumar having an experience of 4 years in dealing with tyres and its related defects and who has acquired knowledge and skills through study and practice over the years. On receipt of the complaint, the Technical Expert, Mr.Suresh Kumar, inspected the vehicle of the Complainant (Hyundia i20) bearing registration No.TS II EC 2207 on the very same day of receipt of the complaint i.e. on October 05, 2015, in line with the warranty policy and the process for claiming warranty of the Company which is a public document and displayed widely including on the website of the Opposite Party No.1 company. On thorough and diligent inspection, the Expert vide his spot Inspection Report dated October 05th, 2015 made the following observations:- Complaint No. Q - 0510150278 Date of complaint 05-10-2015 Date of Inspection 05-10-2015 Customer Name L.Indira Reddy Vehicle No. TS II EC 2207 Vehicle Model Hyundai I 20 Elite Dealer Name M/s Kun United Hyundai Kms Covered 22551kms. Size 195/55 R16 87V Assurance Triple Max Wheel Position FL Serial No. 3714 Mold No. B363473 Hi-tech No. IWI9LHIR Nsd 4mm % Wear 43% Condition Code #36 Observation Tyre checked does not suffer from manufacturing condition hence not adjustable. Sidewall impact bruise break. Disposition REJ The Technical Expert has thus, rightly refused the claim of the Complainant as the Opposite Party No.1 is governed by its own Warranty Policy extended to its esteemed customers and adheres strictly to the same. It is the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 that the Payer of the Complainant is meritless, baseless and based on false assumptions and is not maintainable in law and/or facts. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The Complainant has filed an evidence affidavit along with the documents marked as E.A1 and A2. The opposite parties have filed an evidence affidavit. Reported no documents to be marked. The Complainant has filed written arguments in support of her complaint. The Opposite Parties have filed their written arguments reiterating the contents of their counter.
5. We have perused the documents submitted to us and have heard. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the tyre of the vehicle was suffering from a manufacturing defect? (2) Whether the Complainant is entitled to any compensation? (3) If so, to what relief?
6. Point No.1, 2 and 3 :- The Complainant purchased a Hyundai i20 from M/s KUN United Hyundai on 11-10-2014. It is the say of the Complainant that after few months, there was a bulge in one of the tyres of the vehicle and she requested for replacement of the same, alleging a manufacturing defect in the tyre. It is the case of the Complainant that the vehicle came with the fitted tyres manufactured by Goodyear India Ltd., with a manufacturing warranty of 5 years or until tread is worn upto TWI (Tread Wear Indicators) and the Complainant noticed bulge in the tyre, she complained to Good Year India Ltd., (Opposite Party No.1), who deputed an Engineer to examine the tyre on 05-10-2015. Ex.A2 is the Spot Inspection Report. The Report states that the tyre does not suffer from any manufacturing defect and that it suffered from a sidewall impact bruise break. The opposite parties resisted the complaint under the contention that the life of th typre depends upon the skill of the driver of the vehicle as well as the quality of roads on which it is driven. Not exercising due diligence while driving the vehicle over pot holes/kerbs/bumps etc., will not provide the tyre the expected life of the tyre. The copy of the warranty issued by Good Year India Ltd., (Opposite Party No.1) is placed before us. The relevant portion is reproduced below:- The warranty does not cover tyre damage or irregular wear and tear caused or arising from any of the following reason:-
(i) Road hazards including punctures, cuts, snags, bruise, impact breaks etc.,
(ii) Improper use or operation, including without limitation: improper use such as racing, testing overloading, improper inflation pressure, fitment not according to the specification of vehicle or wheel manufacturer, negligence and alterations to the tyre. It is evident from the material on record that although a warranty is given for tyre for a period of 5 years or until tread is worn upto TWI, the allegation of the Complainant does not establish that the bulge that had occurred in the tyre is due to a manufacturing defect. It is apparent that the bulge that appeared on the tyre is due to external impact but not due to a manufacturing defect. In such facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the tyre was suffering from a manufacturing defect. A manufacturing g defect is a fundamental basic which creeps while manufacturing the product. To prove such a defect, opinion of an expert is necessary, which is not forthcoming in the present case. The Complainant has also failed to place any expert opinion before us. We are therefore of the considered opinion that there is no liability that can be fastened upon the opposite parties. The Complainant has failed to establish a case of deficiency of service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her pronounced by us on this the 16th Day of October 2017. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant:- PW1 : L.Indira Devi. For Opposite Parties:- RW1 : R.K.Gupta RW2 : R.A.Srinivas. Documents Marked:- For Complainant: Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of Sales Invoice, dated 11-10-2014. Ex.A2 is the Xerox copy of Spot Inspection Report, dated 05-10-2015. For Opposite Parties: PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER