IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT F.A. No. 571 of 2022 [Against the order dated 12.10.2022, passed in C.C.No.184 of

2022 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram].

Wednesday, the 8^th day of January, 2025 MRF Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, Mr.Krishnakumar Menon, #124 Greams Road, Chennai – 06. ... Appellant/1st opposite Party - Vs –

1. V. Ramkumar, S/o Veeramuthu, #48, Cholan Street, Prakash Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai-600 058. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Works Manager, Vimalnath, #203-206, Mount Poonamallee Road, Kattupakkam, Chennai -56. ... 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Opp.

3. Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Manager, Mr.Pankaj Praqbhakar, 7th Floor, Capital Towers, #180, Kodambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai -34. ... 3rd Respondent/ 3rd Opp.

For the Appellant : M/s. V.Shankar For the 1^st Respondent: Served. Called absent.

For the 2nd Respondent: M/s. E.K.Amalnath For the 3^rd Respondent: M/s. S.Ramasubramanian Associates This appeal came up for final hearing today (08.01.2025), and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and Respondents 2 and 3 and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order in the Open Court:-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT (Open Court)

This appeal has been filed by the 1st opposite party, as against the order dated 12.10.2022, passed in C.C.No.184 of 2022 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram, allowing the complaint filed by the 1^st Respondent/complainant in part.

2. The Appellant is the 1st opposite party, the 1st Respondent is the complainant and the Respondents 2 and 3 are the opposite parties 2 and 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their respective rankings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram.

3. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that, the complainant had purchased a new Maruti Swift VDI New-1 Metallic manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party, through the 2^nd opposite party on 31.10.2012, vide Invoice No. VSL0110004595, fitted with MRF Tyre of the 1^st opposite party company. The said car was hypothecated with Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, for a total cost of Rs.6,18,470/-. The said car was delivered to the complainant on 24.11.2012. A printed warranty receipt was supplied along with the MRF tyres fitted with the car. On 23.02.2014, while crossing near MTH Road at Ambattur, the left rear tyre of the vehicle got burst with the heavy noise risking the life of the complainant. When the complainant attempted to park his car, the people from the corner of the street surrounded the complainant and started knocking the door of the car. When the complainant rushed out of the car and found that due to the sudden burst of the tyre, the couples who were riding behind the car in a two wheeler were thrown out of the street and they were severely injured. The complainant immediately admitted the injured couple in the Hospital and informed to their relatives and also met out all the initial medical expenses. The above incident occurred only due to the inherent default in the inferior material and sheer manufacturing default of the tyre fitted with the car manufactured and sold by the opposite parties. The said incident is not only risked the life of the complainant but also injured the other innocent people. The complainant is a frequent traveller as he is in the profession of media and advertising and due to the professional requirements of the complainant; he had to travel across the States. The complainant still could not have relieved from the sheer shock and mental trauma that the complainant has been suffering all these days after the above said incident. Due to inferior quality of tyre manufactured and sold by the opposite parties, they are liable for the same. T