Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/16/559

Rachana Navin Mathew - Complainant(s)

Versus

Goodyear India - Opp.Party(s)

19 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN           : PRESIDENT

          SMT.PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

                                      SRI.VIJU.V.R                      : MEMBER

CC.NO.559/2016 (Filed on : 18/11/2016)

ORDER DATED : 19/12/2023

COMPLAINANT

Rachana Navin Mathew,

W/o.Navin Mathew Philip,

TC 31/143 (1), Shell, GRA – 25, Pettah,

Thiruvananthapuram

(By Adv.S.S.Balu & Adv.Ajay kumar)

                                                                             VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Goodyear India Limited,

Madhura Road, Ballabgarh,

Faridabad, Haryana 121004

2. Car Palace, TC 2/3602 (1)
3.  

Thiruvananthapuram – 695004

(OP1 by Adv.S.Leena)

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. After accepting the notice the second opposite party not appeared before this commission and hence on 27/12/2016, the second opposite party was called absent and set exparte. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant.

3.           The case of the complainant in short is that she has purchased four tyres on 13/07/2015 from the opposite parties by paying Rs.48,500/- (Rupees forty eight thousand and five hundred only) to the second opposite party. The tyre purchased by the complainant was manufactured by the first opposite party. According to the complainant immediately after the purchase of the said tyres the problems sprang up and the complainant contacted the second opposite party over phone and the first opposite party through e-mail. The main complaint was that for three tyres purchased from the opposite parties were bulging on running, which inturn causes continuous vibration and shivering while the vehicle is plying. According to the complainant though the defects occurred right from the inception, well within warranty period, both the parties not cared to settle the matter and hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached this commission for redressing her grievances. The opposite party filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant. As per the contention of the first opposite party, the condition observed in the tyres of the complainant car is heal and toe wear and such kind of damage in a tyre is not due to any manufacturing related condition but due to various factors such as mismatch of inflation pressure, delayed / improper tyre rotation or any other vehicle related deficiencies. According to the opposite parties as per Clause B (1) (ii) (iii), exclusions and limitations of the first opposite party’s warranty policy, any damage in a tyre due to mismatch of inflation pressure, delayed / improper tyre rotation are expressly excluded from its warrantable condition. Hence according to the first opposite party as per conditions of the warranty they are not liable to replace the tyres with new one and hence there is no deficiency from the side of the opposite parties. Hence first opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.           After filing written version by the first opposite party, this complaint was adjourned for affidavit of the complainant. Subsequently steps were taken to test the tyre through a lab. But inspite of sending reminders, no report was received from the concerned lab. The parties to the proceedings also not taken any initiative to get the report from the concerned lab. The complainant was subsequently continuously absent and not taken any steps to obtain the report from the concerned lab. The complainant also failed to file affidavit inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. On 16/06/2023, when the case came up for consideration the counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that he is reporting no instruction. Hence this commission issued a notice to the complainant to appear before this commission to further proceed with this complaint. The said notice issued from this commission to the complainant was returned with endorsement that addressee cannot be located. In the above circumstances, we find that the complainant is not interested to further proceed with this complaint. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the complainant failed to adduce any evidence against the opposite parties to prove the case put forwarded by the complainant against the opposite parties. In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed for want of evidence.    

                       In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

              Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 19^th day of December 2023.

                                                                                        Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN       : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                           Sd/-

PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

 

                                                                                           Sd/-

                             VIJU.V.R                   : MEMBER

 

 

be/