APOLLO TYRES LTD vs P Ayyavar Reddy

APOLLO Tyres Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ''Petitioner '') have filed the present revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ''State Commission '') in Appeal No. 577/06 which was decided in favour of P. Ayyavar Reddy and another, Respondents herein.

THE facts of the case according to the Respondent/Complainant are that he had purchased a Lorry Chassis for his Tata 2515 for Rs. 9,76,000 from Meru Automobiles (Respondent No. 2 herein) an agent and dealer of Petitioner, along with 11 tyres on 9.2.2005. Thereafter, the body on the vehicle was constructed within 35 days and the vehicle was registered on 3.3.2005. Respondent obtained a national permit which was valid from 4.3.2005 to 3.3.2010 in respect of four States and paid the required taxes. The vehicle ran only about a month after which the right side tyre burst. Respondent, therefore, purchased a new tyre to replace the burst tyre which was sent to Petitioner, being the manufacturer, for testing. After 15 days the front right side tyre also burst which was replaced by a stepney tyre which also burst within 3 kilometres of its starting and both these tyres were also sent to the Petitioner/manufacturer for testing. As a result of the mishaps in the new tyres which according to the Respondent was due to manufacturing defects, he sustained heavy losses which included the cost of repairs of as also financial loss due to Respondent ''s inability to ply the vehicle. Respondent, therefore wrote to the Petitioner on 12.5.2005 who informed him that the failure of the tyres was not due to any manufacturing defect and therefore, the same was not covered under the Customer Friendly Claims Policy. Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Petitioner along with its agent (Respondent No. 2 herein) be directed to pay him Rs. 1,30,000 being the total losses suffered on account of repairs/replacement of the tyres and vehicle and financial losses, Rs. 20,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 as litigation costs. The above facts were denied by the Petitioner who inter alia stated that the tyres in question were examined by the Petitioner ''s Technical Service Engineer who is a qualified person in Tyre Technology who concluded that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres/vehicle. The cause of the problem was because the tyres were run flat thereby meaning that tyres were run under heavy load without proper air pressure. No evidence was produced by the Respondent on whom there was onus to do so, to controvert these findings or to produce any credible evidence that there was any manufacturing defect. Petitioner further contended that since the vehicle was used for commercial purposes, the Respondent did not fall in the category of a ''consumer '' as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence led by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay the Respondent, Rs. 83,000 towards compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization, Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as litigation costs. The claim made against Respondent No. 2 (Meru Automobiles) was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which partly allowed the same. The relevant part of the order of the State Commission is reproduced: "There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased lorry chassis of the Vehicle TATA 2515 for Rs. 9,76,000 from dealer, opposite party No. 2 The body was constructed on the said vehicle and it was put to service from March, 2005. After one month right side front tyre was burst and it was replaced with a new tyre. Again within 15 days right side tyre was burst and it was replaced with a stepheny tyre which was also burst within 3 kms. from the place of its starting. The appellant firstly contended that the dispute raised by the complainant is not a consumer dispute, that there was no mention in the complaint or affidavit evidence that the vehicle purchased is being used for his livelihood. The submission made by the appellant is concerned there is no doubt in the complaint and evidence affidavit there was no mention by the complainant that the vehicle is being used for his livelihood, but on the other hand there was warranty was issued and the complainant has taken a specific plea that it is manufacturing defect. When the manufacturing defect is alleged and warranty covers the vehicle the dispute raised by the complainant is a consumer dispute. The appellant further submits that there is no technical expert evidence to show that the tyres were having manu-facturing defect. The respondent No. l resisted the plea stating that three tyres were burst hence there is manufacturing defect The appellant submits that District Forum should have given weightage to Ex.Bl rejection letter dated 12.5.2005 addressed by the opposite party No. l to the complainant stating that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyres. The said letter cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, there is no doubt the complainant has not obtained any technical opinion with regard to the tyres are concerned. The defective tyres were also sent to the appellant for testing purpose. There is no denial by the appellant with regard to the burst of tyres. "

THE State Commission, however, concluded that the amount awarded by the District Forum as compensation is excessive and reduced the same to Rs. 30,000. It further directed the Petitioner to refund the Respondent, the price of tyres amounting to Rs. 18,400. State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum pertaining to compensation of Rs. 10,000 for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 towards litigation costs. Hence, the present revision petition. Counsel for Petitioner was present. Notices were sent to the Respondents at the notified address but none has appeared on behalf of Respondents. Since 30 days period has already elapsed from the date of issue of notices, service is deemed to be complete and the case is being heard and decided ex parte.

COUNSEL for Petitioner while admitting that the tyres purchased by Respondent/complainant were manufactured by Petitioner, stated that on their receipt from the Respondent they were sent immediately to Petitioner for testing by a technical expert who confirmed that there was no manufacturing defect and they had burst because they were run flat which means that they were being used under a heavy load without adequate air pressure. Learned Fora erred in not taking into account this important technical report which was neither successfully challenged or controverted by the Respondent and instead ruled in favour of the Respondent by observing that there was no technical expert evidence produced by Petitioner to prove their contention that there was no manufacturing defects.

WE have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. We note that on receipt of the burst tyres by the Petitioner from the Respondent, these were checked by an Engineer who was a technical expert in Tyre Technology. We have also perused his two reports which are filed in evidence and which have concluded that there was no manufacturing defect but the tyres burst because they were run flat which means that they were run without the required air pressure in a heavily loaded vehicle. We note that these facts have not been challenged through any credible counter evidence by the Respondent. Under these circumstances, we find force in the contention of the Petitioner that the tyres burst and failed not due to a manufacturing defect covered under the Customer Friendly Claims Policy but because they were run flat due to the negligence of the Respondent who did not take care to ensure that there was proper air pressure in the tyres of the vehicle vis-a-vis the load carried. The Fora below erred by failing to take into account the two technical reports in this connection and allowed the Respondent ''s complaint by accepting his contention that there was a manufacturing defect since the tyres burst in quick succession, without any proof to this effect. We have, therefore, no option but to set aside the order of the Fora below and dismiss the complaint. The revision petition is therefore allowed. No costs. Revision Petition allowed.