JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2 in OP No. 324/04 in the file of CDRF, Kollam.  The appellants are under orders to supply to the complainant a defect free new tyre or pay its price Rs. 4,350/- and compensation of Rs. 1,000/-.

          2.          The case of the complainant is that she purchased a Tata 709E vehicle on payment of Rs. 5,05,528/- on 29-06-2002 for carrying students of the complainant’s to school.  It is her case that after 500 kms of running one of the back tyres got cracked.  The opposite parties refused to replace the same.  It was intimated that the 3^rd opposite party M/s CEAT Tyres had imported the tyre and that there is no manufacturing defect.  A complaint was filed as OP No. 471/03 before the CDRF which was dismissed for default.  The restoration petition was dismissed on 26-07-2004 hence the present complaint filed.

          3.          The opposite parties had contended that the complaint is barred by limitation.  It has also contended that expert evidence should be adduced to establish the defect of the tyre.  It was also contended that the complainant is running a commercial establishment and hence he is not a consumer under the CP Act.

          4.          The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts. P1 to P8.

          5.          The contentions stressed by the Counsel for the appellants is that the complaint is clearly barred by limitation.  The present complaint has been filed on 05-08-2004.  The vehicle including the tyre was purchased on 08-07-2002.  We find that the period of limitation would start only from the date of refusal on the part of the opposite parties to replace the tyre and not from the date of purchase ie, 08-07-2002.  Ext.P4 reply of the appellant mentioned that the tyre and tube has been carefully examined and it is found that the failure is not due to any manufacturing defect is dated 10-02-2003.  Hence we find that the contention that complaint is barred by limitation has to be found against.

          6.          The contention that the complainant has not established the allegation of manufacturing defect has contemplated u/s 13(1)(c) cannot  be upheld.  In view of the fact that the amount involved is only Rs. 4,350/- and also in view of the fact that the defect is visible.  It is mentioned in Ext.P4 reply notice itself that it is having side wall cut.  The case of the complainant that the vehicle was a new one supplied fitted with the new tyres is not disputed.  The vehicle had run only about 500 kms was also not disputed.  The case that the vehicle was used for taking school children to their school also stands not denied.  The scope for run, used etc. does not appear probable.  Hence the contention based relying on Section 13(1)(c) of the CP Act is liable to be rejected.

          7.          The other contention is that the complainant was using the vehicle for commercial use and hence the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer.  The case of the complainant that she was using the vehicle for taking the children to the school managed by her is not disputed.  Running a school cannot be treated as a commercial enterprise. Hence we find that none of the contentions raised by the appellants is having merit.  In the result, we find that there is no scope for interference in the order of the Forum.

          In the result, the finding of the Forum is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

          The office will forward the LCR to the Forum urgently.

                                             JUSTICE  K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT