Ford ordered to repair EcoSport, pay owners Rs 1.6 lakh over repeated tyre bursts

Holding that the cost of repairs can’t be treated as compensation, the Punjab consumer forum has awarded Rs 1.6 lakh in compensation and litigation costs to the owners of a Ford EcoSport after repeated tyre bursts caused by a defective alloy wheel left them unable to use the vehicle properly for years. The commission directed Ford India Private Limited and its dealer to repair the Rs 12 lakh vehicle and replace its faulty rim.

President Harinderpal Singh Mahal and member Kiran Sibal of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were hearing the complaint filed by Prabha Sood and her son Aditya Sood, who bought a Ford EcoSport Platinum Edition in 2017 and soon started facing repeated tyre failures.

“Since, the vehicle has been lying with OP No.3 (Bhagat Ford), as such, we are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be met if the appellants/complainants be compensated with further costs of Rs 1,50,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties no.1 & 2 (Ford India and M/s Imperial Ford), in addition to the award already passed by the district commission,” the June 8 order read.

The complainants had purchased the car from Imperial Ford (Garyson Auto Pvt Ltd), but the vehicle had been lying with Bhagat Ford, which was arrayed as the third opposite party.

District forum’s order not justifiable: Court

The commission held that the observation of the district consumer body that “the cost of repair should be construed as compensation to the complainant” is not justifiable, as she has suffered a lot of harassment due to the defective rim of the vehicle.

It observed that there was an inherent manufacturing defect in the alloy wheels due to which the tyre size supplied as standard fitment did not comply with the shock-absorbing capacity of the vehicle’s suspension and shock absorbers.

The consumer body has directed Ford to pay Rs 1.5 lakh as compensation for mental agony and harassment, while the earlier award of Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs passed by the district commission remained intact.

Car purchase, repeated defects

The complainant, Prabha Sood, purchased a new Ford ‘Ecosport Platinum Edition’ on July 24, 2017, from Imperial Ford (Garyson Auto Private Limited) by paying a total sum of Rs 12.05 lakh, which included the payment of Rs 19,851 as premium towards insurance to New India Assurance Company.

It was stated that the said vehicle was fitted with Diamond-cut 17-inch alloy wheels, along with Apollo tyres. On June 27, 2017, when the complainant and her son were going to Amritsar in the said vehicle, it hit a pothole at a speed of around 85-90 kmph, and suddenly the right front tyre burst.

She also allegedly noticed that the left front tyre had also bulged due to the incident. After replacing the tyre with the spare and reaching home, the complainant and her son are said to have immediately approached Imperial Ford and explained the said incident.

Story continues below this ad

After inspection, however, the Apollo company’s team allegedly refused to replace the tyres by mentioning that external damage is not covered under the warranty policy.

Subsequently, in another incident, the vehicle allegedly hit a small pothole while driving at 90 kmph and the right-hand front tyre burst. The complainant reportedly noticed that the tyre had the same cut on the sidewall as before. The complainant then sent an email on September 25, 2017, to Ford Customer Care and its two directors, mentioning every aspect of both incidents.

However, the Apollo Engineers once again refused to allow the replacement of all the tyres. Instead, they kept one tyre for inspection.

The service engineer also allegedly informed the complainant that Apollo tyres were the only brand available with them and if the complainant wanted to get any other brand, the company would get the same replaced, at their cost by sourcing from another vendor.

Story continues below this ad

Aggrieved by the conduct of the company, the woman approached the district commission, which partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to repair the vehicle to make it roadworthy, but it failed to consider that the company had sold a defective vehicle and the same had caused accidents within a span of four months only due to a defect in the vehicle.

Dissatisfied with the relief granted, the complainants challenged the order before the state commission. The appellant was represented by advocate Munish Goe in the matter.

Car used extensively: Ford

Ford stated that bursting of the tyre while the car was being driven at a high speed on a rough road, that too after hitting a pothole, can by no stretch of imagination be stated to have happened due to any defect in the tyre.

It was reported that the tyre was damaged due to external impact, which was not covered under the warranty policy. The company claimed that the vehicle was being used extensively by the complainant at an average of over 150 km per day in complete violation of the permitted speed limits.

Story continues below this ad

It was further added that though the company and its authorised dealer were under no obligation to offer any replacement for the simple reason that tyres are not covered under the limited warranty offered by it, two front tyres were replaced by the company at zero cost as a goodwill gesture solely to enhance customer satisfaction.

It was stated that the said replacement was done even though the bursting of the tyre had taken place as a consequence of running over a pothole at a high speed while the car was being rashly driven and negligently handled.

It was further added that the appellant has only levelled bald allegations that for a wheel of the size of 17 inches, the provided tyre of said size is a bad fit.

It was added that there was not even a single document indicating that the tyres manufactured by Apollo Tyres Limited are of inferior quality and the company maintained that there was no deficiency in service on its part.

Story continues below this ad

Significance of ruling

This ruling reflects that when consumers spend a substantial amount on a product, they are entitled to receive the quality and performance promised by the manufacturer. Merely carrying out repairs cannot compensate for prolonged inconvenience and loss of use.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Chandigarh: 0172-2700183) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.