Date Issued: November 7, 2023

File: SC-2022-008242

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Rishiraj v. Kal Tire Ltd., 2023 BCCRT 960

Between:

NEETU RISHIRAJ

Applicant

And:

KAL TIRE LTD.

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Peter Mennie

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about the purchase of car tires.

2.      The applicant, Neetu Rishiraj, says that he purchased tires from the respondent, Kal Tire Ltd. (Kal Tire). Mr. Rishiraj says that Kal Tire promised but has not provided services for the tires’ lifetime including balancing, rotations, and seasonal tire swaps. Mr. Rishiraj also says that Kal Tire damaged wheel cover nuts and a trunk latch on his vehicle. He claims $5,000 as damages.

3.      Kal Tire says that it has provided all services included with the tires. It denies breaking Mr. Rishiraj’s wheel nut covers or trunk latch.

4.      Mr. Rishiraj is self-represented. Kal Tire is represented by an authorized employee.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). Section 2 of the CRTA states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly.

6.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

7.      Section 42 of the CRTA says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law.

ISSUES

8.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Whether Kal Tire breached its agreement with Mr. Rishiraj to provide tire balancing and rotations and, if so, whether Mr. Rishiraj is entitled to damages.

b.    Whether Kal Tire breached its agreement with Mr. Rishiraj to provide seasonal tire swaps and, if so, whether Mr. Rishiraj is entitled to damages.

c.    Whether Kal Tire damaged wheel nut covers or a trunk latch on Mr. Rishiraj’s vehicle and, if so, whether Mr. Rishiraj is entitled to damages.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, Mr. Rishiraj must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not. I have read all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

10.   I will address the parties’ evidence and specific arguments regarding each of the issues below.

Tire balancing and rotations

11.   It is undisputed that Mr. Rishiraj purchased four “extreme claw” winter tires from Kal Tire in 2010.

12.   Mr. Rishiraj says that the purchase of the tires included lifetime services for balancing and rotating the tires. In support, Mr. Rishiraj provided Kal Tire’s Customer Care Policy and Warranty which outline the services Kal Tire agreed to provide with the purchase of the tires. The Customer Care Policy states that Kal Tire will provide free rotation and lifetime balancing with the purchase of the tires.

13.   Mr. Rishiraj says that Kal Tire has never balanced the tires on his vehicle. He submitted an invoice from Big O Tires dated September 26, 2022, for work done on his vehicle. The invoice noted that three of four tires were out of balance. Mr. Rishiraj says Kal Tire failed to balance his tires five times and failed to rotate his tires three times.

14.   Kal Tire says it rotated and balanced Mr. Rishiraj’s tires as required under the parties’ agreement. It submitted previous invoices as evidence which show that Mr. Rishiraj was provided with multiple tire rotations and tire swaps at no charge after he purchased his tires. Kal Tire says that tire rotations include tire balancing and that tire swaps include tire rotations. So, Kal Tire says that Mr. Rishiraj received tire rotations and balancing at each of these service appointments. Kal Tire agrees that Mr. Rishiraj continues to be eligible for free tire rotations and balancing.

15.   Kal Tire denies that it failed to balance Mr. Rishiraj’s tires in 2022. It says that four months passed between balancing at Kal Tire and the invoice from Big O Tires noting three out of four tires were out of balance. It says Mr. Rishiraj’s wheels could have been unbalanced for numerous reasons such as hitting a curb or pothole.

16.   I find that Kal Tire has provided Mr. Rishiraj with tire balancing and rotations as required under the parties’ agreement. Kal Tire’s invoices show that it provided tire rotations and tire swaps to Mr. Rishiraj free of charge. I accept that tire rotations and swaps include tire balancing. I find that the invoice from Big O Tires does not establish that Kal Tire failed to provide tire balancing in 2022 because Mr. Rishiraj’s tires could have become unbalanced for any number of reasons. So, I find that Mr. Rishiraj is not entitled to any damages here.

Seasonal tire swaps

17.   Mr. Rishiraj argues that Kal Tire stopped providing free tire swaps which was a breach of the parties’ agreement. It is undisputed that Kal Tire provided this service free of charge until 2018 when Kal Tire began charging for this service.

18.   The Customer Care Policy does not say that Kal Tire will provide free seasonal tire swaps. Mr. Rishiraj relies on a note on Kal Tire’s invoice dated April 17, 2018, stating "call customer when done…Please do not charge for swaps for the life of the tire". Mr. Rishiraj says this note means Kal Tire agreed to provide free tire swaps and so it is a binding agreement between the parties.

19.   Mr. Rishiraj relies on David Ramsay v BCE Inc., an unreported decision dated March 19, 2018, from Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice, Small Claims Court. This decision held that a company cannot unilaterally alter a contract with a customer. While an Ontario decision is not binding in BC, I accept as a general principle of law that a contract cannot be unilaterally varied without the full knowledge and consent of both parties and for valid consideration.

20.   Kal Tire says it offered free seasonal tire swaps instead of tire rotations up to March 2018 when this practice stopped. It says that tire swaps were not required under the parties’ agreement and this was done at Kal Tire’s discretion. It says the note on the April 17, 2018 invoice is a note for a manager to call Mr. Rishiraj as he requested free tire swaps.

21.   I find that free seasonal tire swaps were not included with the purchase of Mr. Rishiraj’s tires. The Customer Care Policy does not list tire swaps as a lifetime service. While Kal Tire did provide free tire swaps until 2018, I find this was done at its discretion and was not part of the agreement. I find that the statement on the 2018 invoice to “call customer” and the use of the word “please” indicates that this was a note for a Kal Tire employee to contact Mr. Rishiraj about his request for free tire swaps. As well, no consideration passed from Mr. Rishiraj to Kal Tire so the any agreement for tire swaps was not legally binding. So, I find that Kal Tire is not required to provide tire swaps to Mr. Rishiraj free of charge.

Wheel Nut Covers and Trunk Latch

22.   Mr. Rishiraj claims that Kal Tire damaged three of his wheel cover nuts and trunk latch when his vehicle was serviced by Kal Tire. He says Kal Tire replaced two wheel cover nuts, but the replacements are of smaller size and do not match the originals. He says the trunk latch was never replaced.

23.   Kal Tire denies breaking the wheel nut covers or trunk latch. Kal Tire says that wheel nut covers are not durable and sometimes break. It says it replaced two of the wheel nut covers as an act of good faith. The trunk latch is only used when accessing Mr. Rishiraj’s spare tire. Kal Tire says that its technicians would have had no reason to access Mr. Rishiraj’s spare tire.

24.   I find that Mr. Rishiraj’s allegations that Kal Tire damaged his vehicle are unproven. I accept that wheel nut covers do break and I find that there is no evidence that the damage was caused by Kal Tire’s negligence. I agree with Kal Tire that there would have been no reason for Kal Tire employees to use Mr. Rishiraj’s trunk latch to access his spare tire and that Mr. Rishiraj’s allegations are only speculation. In any event, Mr. Rishiraj submitted no evidence of the cost of replacing his wheel nut covers or trunk latch. For all these reasons, I dismiss Mr. Rishiraj’s claim for damage to his vehicle.

CRT fees and expenses

25.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. Mr. Rishiraj was unsuccessful in his claim so he is not entitled to reimbursement of his CRT fees. Neither party claimed any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

26.   I dismiss Mr. Rishiraj’s claim and this dispute.