BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 28th February 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.267/2013
(Admitted on 25.09.2013)
Mr. Shyam Prasad K,
S/o Balakrishna Bhat,
Paradka house, Ilantila post and village,
Belthangady Taluk D.K.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri HK)
VERSUS
1. Proprietor,
Mangalore New Tyres,
Ahmed Towers,
Main Road, Bolwar,
Puttur, D.K 574201.
2. Birla Tyres,
Birla Building,
7th Floor, 9/1,
R.N. Mukharjee Road,
Kolkata 700001,
West Bengal.
….......OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri SD)
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Ex parte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
That the complainant purchased tyre and tube on 21.6.2011 from opposite party No.1 of manufactured by opposite party No.2 for Rs.1,650/ but in January 2012 the sole of the tyre was worn out as alleged by complainant which was denied by opposite party. Complainant issued legal notice claiming that due to manufacturing defects seeking compensation as claimed by complainant which was not paid by opposite party. Opposite party No.1 also claims that complainant did not disclose how many Km the bike has run and disputes deficiency in service.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. Shyam Prasad K filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C5 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Smt. Zeenath Aziz (RW1) Proprietor, Mangalore New Tyres, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on her.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of argument. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Partly Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): The complainant had purchased the tyre with tube in question from opposite party No.1 of manufacturer of opposite party No.2 is not disputed. The tyre was worn out within 8 months of purchase was disputed by opponents. Hence there is no only relationship of consumer and service provider but dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (ii): Ex.C1 is the purchase bill dated 21.6.2011 issued by opposite party No.1 for Rs.1,650/. Ex.C5 is a reply sent by opposite party No.1 even to the legal notice as Ex.C2 sent on behalf of complainant admitting the return of the tyre in the month of November 2012 and that it was without tube.
2. In the version opposite party No.1 has claimed that the complainant had not mentioned how many kilometres were run with the tyre. Complainant in his reply to the interrogatories mentioned the vehicle had run to a distance of 500 kilometres presuming with the new after the purchase of the tyre, the complainant admittedly is practising as an advocate at Puttur and his residence is about 25 kilo from Puttur, as per his evidence in the reply of the affidavit hence though 500 may not be correct on a reasonable estimate he must have run about 2500 kilometre with the tyre.
3. Considering that 2500 kilometre is not a distance through which the tyre should deteriorate, there is deficiency in service by opposite parties No.1 and No.2. This is a case to direct to opposite party No.2 the manufacturer to pay Rs.2,200/ including the cost. Opposite party No.1 and No.2 directed to give new tyre to complainant within 30 days. Hence we answer Point No.2 Partly in the Affirmative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party No.1 and No.2 jointly and severally pay Rs.2,200/- (Rupees Two thousand Two hundred only) including the cost within 30 days of this order. In failure to pay within the stipulated time the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 5 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 28th February 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Shyam Prasad K
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 21.06.2011: Description of the Documents
Ex.C2: 15.01.2013: Tyre Purchase Bill (Original)
Ex.C3: 15.01.2013: Postal Receipt (Original)
Ex.C4: 16.01.2013: Postal acknowledgement
Ex.C5: 31.01.2013: Reply notice
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Smt. Zeenath Aziz, Proprietor, Mangalore New Tyres,
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 28.02.2017 PRESIDENT
