(1.) 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.
(2.) 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 09.02.2005. Thereafter, the body on the vehicle was constructed within 35 days and the vehicle was registered on 03.03.2005. Respondent obtained a national permit which was valid from 04.03.2005 to 03.03.2010 in respect of four States and paid the required taxes. The vehicle for 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 kilometers 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 12.05.2005 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.
(3.) 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.