___ ~~?"..,~~-vvu
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of July, 2010
Filed on 03.09.2008
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.197/2008
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Gopakumar. K. 1. Bridge Stone India Pvt. Ltd.
Aparna, Kaithavana Plot No.12, Kheda Growth Centre
Alappuzha – 688 003 Pithampur, Post Sagore – 454774
(By Adv. K.V. Subhakumar) District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh
2. Sri. Pradeep Alex, Dy. District
Sales Manager, Bridge Stone
India Pvt. Ltd., 34/1241 – C
Beena Anjumana Road
Edappally, Cochin – 682 024
3. M/s. Alleppey Pavalam Tyres
and Mill Stores, West of Iron
Bridge, St. George Street
Alapuzha
(By Adv. Tomy Mathew –
Opposite parties 1 to 3)
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case in succinct is as follows:- The complainant on 7th May 2005 purchased four tyres and tubes from the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.800l/-(Rupees eight thousand and one only). Out of the four tyres the complainant so bought only one tyre performed efficiently as promised by the opposite parties. The other three ones due to manufacturing defect failed to perform properly. The complainant approached the opposite parties and impressed upon them as to the poor quality and performance of the tyres they sold out to the complainant. The second opposite party visited the complainant premise and inspected the said tyres. Though the second opposite party detected a bulging up on the side of one of the tyres he stuck to the stand that the same was not an outcome of any manufacturing defect and stayed away from resolving the complainant's grievances. The complainant on 19th July 2008 caused to send a lawyer notice to the 1st and the 2nd opposite parties calling upon to recompense the complainant for the defective tyres which evoked no sort of useful response. Only a hurtful reply notice was sent alleging that the complainant's attempt was to extort money from the opposite parties. The opposite parties inflicted mental agony to the complainant. Got pained by these, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notices being sent the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The opposite parties contend that the complainant used the tyre for a long four years with out any complaint. The tyres had taken trips to an inestimable a long distance. The attempt of the complainant is to make illegitimate enrichment, the opposite parties contend. According to the 2nd opposite party the sideward bulging up of the tyre was due to the breaking of the ply cords resulted from some extraneous impact. The opposite parties never adopted any unfair tactics. On receiving the complaint, the opposite parties promptly subjected the tyres to proficient check up. In the said skillful scrutiny, it was found that the tyres were not suffering from any sort of manufacturing defect, and the said factum was duly intimated to the complainant. Now the attempt of the complainant is to swindle out illegal enrichment from the opposite parties. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties assert.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and the documents Exts. A1 to A7 were marked. The commission report was marked as Ext. C1. On the side of the opposite parties no evidence has been adduced.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the tyres the complainant purchased from the opposite parties are inherently defective?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. The complainant has concededly purchased the tyres from the opposite parties. The complainant’s contention is that some of the tyres so bought from the opposite parties were inherently defective. One of such tyres bulged out sideward rendering the same unusable. According to the opposite parties the said protuberance is the consequence of breaking up of ply cords in the particular region following some external impact thereon. The opposite parties contend that the complainant has made use of the tyres exhaustively for nearly four years. The tyres were made to roll over for an incalculable kilometers. Thus, it appears that the opposite parties fervently challenge the complainant case as to the manufacturing defects of the said tyres. Holding in view the said contentions, we anxiously analyzed the materials put on record by both the parties. It is seen that on an inspection by the opposite parties a swelling of the tyre was detected. Interestingly, as per the opposite parties the said swelling of the tyre was due to the breaking up of the ply cords. The ply cords of the tyre got broken up consequent to some collision from exterior. The damage is not due to that of manufacturing defect. On a mere look into the opposite parties' contentions, it appears that the same is unsupported by any sort of reasoning or materials. It is significant to note that the swelling up of the tyre is admitted. However the reasons the opposite parties assigned for the same has not been duly substantiated by adducing a whiff of materials. The opposite ,parties seemingly argued that the complainant has used up the tyres to the hilt of their longevity. As we have already on umpteen occasions observed mere making statements will not take the place of proof. The parties are supposed to substantiate their case either by producing relevant documents or adducing other kind of evidence by means of any known method recognized by law. However, coming down to the instant case, the Ext. C1 commission report indubitably suggests that side wall bulging of the tyre is either the apparent out come of the air being trapped during various process of tyre molding or the by the coating of dirt over the ply cord at the close of the manufacturing process. As we have mentioned earlier, the opposite parties haven't made it a point to adopt any useful steps to refute the case advanced by the complainant. In the absence ,of any materials being let in by the opposite parties to rebut the complainant case, and. in the context of Ext. A1 and other materials put on record by the complainant to underline his case, we are of the considered view that the complainant case stands well- substantiated. It appears that, according to the complainant himself the third opposite party is arrayed perfunctorily for necessity, and as
such no relief is sought against the 3rd opposite party.
In view of the facts and findings herein above, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.l5,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with 9% interest as compensation to the complainant for the mental as well as monetary woes the opposite parties inflicted upon: him. The .opposite parties shall comply with the order within 15 days of receipt of this order.
Complaint stands disposed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2010.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.Gopakumar (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Bill for Rs.8454/-
Ext.A2 - Claim application form
Ext.A3 - Legal Notice dtd. 19.07.2008
Ext.A4 - Postal receipts (2 Nos.
Ext.A5 - Acknowledgement card
Ext.A6 - Bill for Rs.4740/-
Ext.A7 - Reply notice dtd. 31st July 2008
Ext.C1 - Commission Report
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
