Kumho Tire Blames Vehicle Defect and Rejects Warranty Claim for Peeling Tread

In 2024, I replaced all four tires on my vehicle with Kumho tires. Because I was satisfied with the brand, I purchased one additional Kumho tire on September 26, 2025, from CMK Oto Lastik in Mersin Mezitli. About nine months later, my mechanic pointed out that the rubber compound on this newly installed tire was defective, with the tread peeling off and showing abnormal wear. Remarkably, while the other Kumho tires on the exact same vehicle remained in perfect condition, only this specific tire suffered damage.

Before removing the tire, I brought the car to an alignment shop, where technicians verified that the vehicle had zero mechanical defects and advised me to document the condition with photos. Since the tire was under warranty, I submitted a claim to CMK Oto Lastik, and they forwarded the tire to the Mersin distributor. The Mersin dealership instructed me to return after the holiday, after which they would send the tire to the warranty department in Istanbul.

After a long delay, I received an inspection report claiming the tire had no defects and blaming my vehicle instead. I refuse to accept the claim that my vehicle caused this damage, especially since the alignment shop confirmed my car is in proper working order and none of the other Kumho tires experienced any wear issues.

Due to this frustrating experience and unfair outcome, I demand a full cash refund of $118—the amount I paid for the tire at CMK Oto Lastik—credited to my bank account. I request an objective re-investigation, concrete evidence explaining any claim of user error or vehicle defect, and an immediate resolution to my grievance.