Lalit Kumar vs UOI and Others

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present petitioner claims the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other direction, order or writ thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 to 4 to immediately recall the

complete lot of production of defective GPS-2 radial tyres, so manufactured by them and supplied to various car manufacturers to be used as

original equipment and/or being sold in open market as replacements for old worn-out tyres through the marketing network of the said respondents

including amongst other the respondent No. 5.

(b) Issue appropriate direction, orders or writ thereby directing the Respondents and more specifically Respondent No. 1 to issue all such Public

Notifications, Literature, hand bills, caution notices, as would be deemed necessary for ensuring the safety and security of the innocent vehicle

owners and to conduct necessary awareness programs for the customers I print as well as Broadcast Media and by all other modes of Information

Technology in the larger Public interest;

(c) Issue appropriate direction, orders or writ thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 to 5 to refund the complete amount of money paid by the

consumers for purchase of tyres which were defective at the time of their production itself and to further pay an amount of Rs. 1 (Rupee one) as

and by way of damages for the failure of the respondents to act upon the matter as called for by the petitioner in larger public interests; and

(d) issue appropriate direction, orders or writ thereby directing the respondent No. 2 to 4 to immediately stop the production of the tyres and

subject the design of manufacturer to stringent tests and quality verifications and obtain necessary clearance for quality for resumption of

manufacturing/supply of any further lot in Larger Public Interest.

(e) issue appropriate direction, orders or writ thereby directing the respondent No. 1 to issue necessary instructions to the Respondent No. 2 to 4

to recall the complete production and stop production of tyres till such time as the quality/design is rectified in the eventuality of the failure of the

respondent No. 2 to 4 to take necessary action in this regard to cancel the manufacturing licence of the said respondent and take other punitive

action; and

The petitioner contends that he has purchased the Maruti Zen car, fitted with GPS-2 Radial Tyres manufactured by the second respondent.

According to him while driving on the Delhi-Jaipur Highway on 10th January 2004, a defect in the tyre led to the vehicle turning turtle, Fortunately

no one suffered any injury. The petitioner claims to have got the tyres investigated from Shri Ram Institute Research. A copy of the test result has

been filed. The same records as follow:

SD/-

AUHORISED SIGNATORY

Learned Counsel submitted that there is an inherent defect in the tyres marketed by the second respondent which are hazardous and pose a

threat to the car owners, passengers as well as members of the public who ply vehicles on the road. It is contended by Mr. Saxena that expert

inspection of the tyre revealed that they have sharp edges, grooves and ribs on the inner surface of the tyres are pinching the tubes sharply. Due to

constant pressure of such sharp edges cutting across the tubes, they soften at places of pressure, resulting into frequent deflation and damage to

tyres particularly at high speeds. Learned counsel has sought to rely upon technical literature as well as reports and submitted that in these

circumstances the respondent No. 2 should be banned from marketing the product and that the other respondents should be directed to ensure

compliance with the Court''s order.

The Second respondent contends that it is not subject to writ proceedings since it is a privately owned company. It also contends that if the

petitioner is aggrieved, he should have complained under the Consumer Protection Act and taken such other action as are available in law to

agitate his grievances. Learned counsel for Union of India contends that the present controversy involves disputed questions of facts which are left

best for determination by the civil process or the for a created under the Consumer Protection Act.

The above discussion show that the petitioner''s grievance is primarily against the second respondent''s products. The second respondent is a

privately owned company, no doubt incorporated under the provisions of the Companies act. That by itself does not clothe its functions of

marketing tyres in question, as discharging a public duty, in which event alone can the Court exercise judicial review. Further more the relief sought

by the petitioner in the opinion of this Court involves investigation into several facts, such as applicable standards, the nature and extent of deviation

alleged and remedial action, if any, required to be taken. The petitioner has not even indicated what are the applicable standards. Going further into

these disputes would involve a trial of several facts which is not appropriate in writ proceedings. In view of the above discussion, the Court holds

that writ proceedings are not maintainable. However, nothing stated above, would preclude the petitioner from seeking remedies as available in

law, if advised, to approach the State Consumer Redressal Commission, or the civil court. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.