Vehicle Manufacturer Liable For Manufacturing Defect Causing Tire Wear Despite Separate Tire Warranty: Rajasthan State Consumer Commission - 2025-07-27

Rajasthan State Consumer Commission Holds Toyota Liable for Fortuner's Manufacturing Defect Causing Tire Wear

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld a District Commission's order directing Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd to either rectify a manufacturing defect in a Fortuner SUV causing abnormal tire wear or replace the vehicle entirely. The Commission dismissed Toyota's appeal, ruling that a manufacturer cannot evade responsibility by citing a separate warranty for tires when the root cause of the problem lies within the vehicle's manufacturing.

The bench, comprising President Justice Devendra Kachhawaha and Members Nirmal Singh Medatwal and Liyakat Ali, affirmed the finding of a "major, serious, and hazardous" inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

---

Background of the Case

The complainant, Rajat Dinesh, purchased a new Toyota Fortuner Sigma-4 on July 22, 2020, for a total of ₹34,41,089, along with an extended warranty. Within a few months, he noticed that the front-left tire was wearing out abnormally and excessively on its outer edge.

Despite multiple visits to authorized Toyota service centers (Rishi Toyota and Mayank Toyota) and repeated wheel alignments for which he was charged, the problem persisted. The complainant's attempts to resolve the issue through Toyota's customer care and emails to company officials were unsuccessful. The service centers, despite their efforts, including replacing the steering wheel, failed to fix the core issue.

Frustrated, the complainant commissioned a technical report from N.S. Chauhan, a mechanical engineer and surveyor, who concluded that the vehicle suffered from an "inherent manufacturing defect" that was irreparable and made the vehicle unsafe. This defect was causing the persistent tire wear. Based on this, Dinesh filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur-II, seeking a replacement vehicle and compensation.

---

Arguments of the Parties

Toyota's Arguments: Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd, the appellant, raised several defenses: - The complainant failed to implead the tire manufacturer, who they argued was a necessary party as tires are covered under a separate warranty provided by the tire company, not Toyota. - The expert report by N.S. Chauhan was biased as it was commissioned by the complainant and lacked an affidavit, making it a "doubtful document." - The manufacturer's liability is limited to replacing defective parts, and there was no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the consumer for such issues. - The issue was with the tire, not the vehicle, and the complainant should have approached the tire manufacturer as per the warranty guidelines.

Complainant's Arguments: Rajat Dinesh, the respondent, countered that: - The problem was not with the tire itself but with the vehicle's mechanics, which caused any tire placed in that position to wear out abnormally. He had demonstrated this by rotating the tires, only for the new tire in that position to also start wearing down, damaging a second tire in the process. - The expert report, supported by an affidavit from a qualified mechanical engineer with ten years of experience, clearly established an inherent and dangerous manufacturing defect. - Despite repeated attempts, Toyota's own authorized service centers were unable to diagnose and rectify the problem, proving it was beyond simple repair and indicative of a core manufacturing flaw.

---

Commission's Findings and Reasoning

The State Commission meticulously analyzed the evidence, including service records, bills for wheel alignments, and the expert report. The judgment, authored by Member Nirmal Singh Medatwal, highlighted several key points:

"...when the complainant rotated other tires to the front-left position, they also started showing similar wear. This demonstrates that there was no manufacturing defect in the tires, but rather that the vehicle was manufactured in such a way that it caused excessive wear to the front-left tire... Therefore, we do not agree with the argument made by the appellant company that the tire company had to be informed."

The Commission gave significant weight to the unrebutted expert report. It noted that Toyota had not cross-examined the expert, nor had it offered to have the vehicle inspected by its own expert during the proceedings to disprove the finding of a manufacturing defect.

"The expert, Mr. N.S. Chauhan, is a B.E. (Mechanical) engineer with ten years of experience... He concluded that since the dealer and workshop could not fix the vehicle's defect, it is a manufacturing defect that makes the vehicle unsafe... As the appellant did not challenge the expert's facts, why should they not be believed?"

The Commission concluded that the failure of authorized service centers to fix the issue after multiple attempts was proof in itself that the defect was inherent and not easily repairable.

---

Final Decision

The State Commission found no factual or legal error in the District Commission's decision. It dismissed Toyota's appeal and upheld the original order, which directs Toyota to: 1. Completely resolve the tire-wear issue within three months to make the vehicle perfectly usable. 2. If the defect cannot be rectified, provide the complainant with a new vehicle of the same model or refund its price. 3. Pay ₹20,000 for the damaged tires. 4. Pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental and physical anguish. 5. Pay ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.

This judgment reinforces the principle that manufacturers are ultimately responsible for the integrity of their products as a whole, and cannot deflect liability for defects in the main vehicle by pointing to separate warranties for ancillary parts like tires.