O R D E R

Sri. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                 The petitioner filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act for getting reliefs against the opposite parties.

                 2. The case of the complainant is described as follows:  On 24.01.2013 the complainant purchased an MRF Tyre vide bill No.3331 for the use of her Maruthi Car No.KL.3C/8807.  On 29.05.2014 at about 7 a.m the said tyre was broken with a wide sound in front of Subramanyaswamy Temple at Kodumthara.  When the tyre was broken as stated the vehicle swiped and hit on a culvert and the husband of the complainant G. Radhakrishnan Nair sustained some injury apart from the damage caused to the car. 

                 3. As soon as the incident took place the matter informed to the authorized Maruthi Dealer of Pathanamthitta and they rushed to the spot and change the broken tyre and lastly taken the vehicle with the help of another vehicle.  Regarding the incident no FIR was registered since the car covers only 3^rd party insurance and none other than the owner of the vehicle sustained any injuries.  On 20.07.2014 the petitioner contacted the opposite party and sent the broken tyre to the concerned dealer for chemical analysis.  On 30.07.2014 vide bill No.1627 the company provided a new tyre to the petitioner.  According to her, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party admitted that the edge of the tyre was broken only because of the defect in the manufacture of the tyre.  The complainant remitted Rs.10,000/- on 09.06.2014 vide Rt.No. 967/WS/14-15 and on 18.07.2014 vide Rt.No.147A/WN/14-15 remitted Rs.9,976/- to the Indus Motors for the repairing and maintenance of the car.  On 18.07.2014 the complainant demanded the opposite parties to give the compensation for the mechanical defect of the tyre at the time the opposite parties directed her to file a petition before this Forum for her grievances.  Therefore, this Forum consider her grievance and allow an amount of Rs.50,000/- as the compensation for mental as well as physical injuries caused as a result of the said incident. 

                 4. In this case the Forum heard the complainant and issue notice to the opposite parties.  Both the parties are appeared before the Forum and 1^st opposite party filed version.  Subsequently, 2^nd opposite party also admitted the version filed by 1^st opposite party. 

        5.  The contention of the opposite parties through their version before the Forum is described below:-  The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and circumstances of the case.  The complainant has suppressed, destroyed and concealed the vital and material facts germane to the issue. According to the opposite party, the petitioner has made only a vague allegation and has not even mentioned serial number of the tyre alleged to have been damaged.  The complaint is not maintainable since the defective tyre has not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant as per Sec.13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act.  The opposite party also quoted certain decision in his version regarding this aspect.  This opposite party admitted the transaction of the tyre vide invoice No.3331 dated 24.12.2013 for Rs.2,680/-.  This opposite party assured to replace the tyre in case of any defect happened within the warranty period.  The complainant’s allegation to the effect that the respondent refuse to replace the tyre on false excuses are denied as false.  According to the opposite party, after inspection report were given to the complainant and to M/s. Union Tyre Agencies on 28.07.2014 and subsequently proper instruction was given to the complainant to collect the tyre.  The tyres mentioned in the complaint are of a true and merchantable quality absolutely free from any manufacturing defect and the tyres were damaged due to the reason stated above.  According to this opposite party the damage of the tyre occurred due to “Bead Wire Protruding” due to over load/under inflation/over pressure on tyre/sudden impact on tyre with heavy object.  Any how without prejudice and considering the goodwill of the firm the opposite party offered replacement of one tyre to the complainant.  The opposite party charged only an amount of  Rs.194.87/- was tax from the complainant the original cost of tyre was Rs.1,921/-, which was exempted.

                 6. According to the opposite party they are the manufactures of the largest range of tyres in India and they have a goodwill of superior quality, appearance and long life.  The company manufactured the tyre in good standard of quality and is free from any manufacturing defect.  The opposite party in Para 14 of his version pointed out certain other reason for the damage of the tyre.  As per Para 15 of the version, opposite party admitted that when the product is having manufacturing defect then only opposite party’s liability will  be arised.  According to the opposite party, the damage caused to the complainant’s tyre was not a manufacturing defect so that the opposite party have no liability to replace the tyre.  In Para 18 and 19 of the version opposite party stated that there is no cause of action for this case and the calculation made by the complainant in this complaint is baseless, untrue and incorrect.  The complainant has no right to claim any of the relief as stated in the complaint and the opposite party is ready and willing to explain the cause of the damage caused to the said tyres by producing the damaged tyre before the Forum.  Therefore, opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to the opposite party.   

                 7. In view of the pleading of the complainant and opposite party and hearing, we decided to raise the following points:

1. Whether the complaint can be maintainable before the Forum?
2. Whether the complaint is entitled to get any relief claimed?
3. Regarding cost and Relief?

        8. Point Nos.1 to 3:- For the sake of convenience the above 3 issues are considering together, the complainant filed this complaint along with 6 documents.  Apart from this complaint, complainant filed a chief affidavit in lieu of the chief examination and in that chief affidavit she listed 6 documents.  The 1^st document is bill dated 29.06.2014 of Rs.10,000/- issued from Indus Motors, Pathanamthitta.  Document No.2 is balance bill dated 10.07.2014 issued from Indus Motors, Pathanamthitta for Rs.9,976/-.  Document No.3 is a letter from the Works Manager, Indus Motors, Pathanamthitta dated 16.08.2014.  Document No.4 is a claim tyre bill dated 30.07.2014 issued from Union Tyre Agencies.  Document No.5 is a copy of R.C. Book.  Document No.6 is the purchase bill from Union Tyre Agencies dated 24.12.2013.

         9. Though the complainant filed the above such chief affidavit the complainant or her authorized agent the husband didn’t turned up for trial before the Forum on the day fixed for adducing evidence.  Meanwhile on 07.11.2014, the opposite party filed an I.A which was numbered as 70/2014 allowing to produce the damaged tyre before the Forum.  It is seen that the petitioner raised some preliminary objection regarding this I.A but at last complainant was amenable to produce the tyre before the Forum by opposite party.  She also submitted that she is ready to pay the labour expense if any, caused for the production.  It is interesting to see that after producing the tyre before the Forum, it is the duty of the petitioner to send the tyre in question to a qualified chemical lab approved by the Government for chemical examination.  The petitioner’s husband who was present before the Forum on 25.02.2015 raised serious objection against the sending of tyre for laboratory analysis and he doesn’t want to give any oral or documentary evidence in connection with this case before the Forum.  He not only submitted the matter before the Forum but also endorsed these facts in his document of objection.

         10. It is very clear and moreover a statutory provision in C.P. Act for sending goods in question for chemical analysis if it is necessary.  The Sec.13 (c) says “ where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view top finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”.

         11. The attitude and approach of the complainant shows that she is not ready and willing to send her article in question for a chemical analysis report.  When we decide this case, we have to peruse the version given by the opposite party in this matter.  The opposite party vehemently opposed even the very basis of the complaint and their strong stand is that they have not committed any deficiency in service or the article has suffered any mechanical defect as alleged by the petitioner.  The opposite party has a very serious allegation against the complainant to effect that due to petitioner’s rushness/negligence are the only reason for the damage of the tyre.  In order to prove this point, the opposite party raised certain technical aspects, which was prepared by the technical engineer of the concerned.  It is evident to see that when the opposite party received the complaint of the damage of the tyre and other incidents, they rushed to the spot and taken the vehicle into the workshop and subsequently the opposite party allotted a new tyre instead of the damaged one.  It is seen that the opposite party only charged a lesser amount as the difference of the price of material from the petitioner.

         12. When we consider all the facts described above and the pleadings of both sides, the approach and attitude of petitioner it is seen that though the complainant clearly comes under the purview of complainant under C.P. Act she miserably failed to establish the case before the Forum.  Though she produced 6 documents before the Forum, she has given no importance to exhibit this document legally before the Forum.  The point No.1 is in favour of the complainant. This Forum granted sufficient time and given sufficient direction to the petitioner to establish her case before this Forum by one way or other she evaded, from the process of the Forum.  Hence Point Nos.2 and 3 are found against the complainant. 

         13. In the result, we pass the following orders. 

         The case of the petitioner is hereby dismissed.  No order of cost.

         Declared in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of March, 2015.

                                                                      (Sd/-)

                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                           

                                                                           (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)    :  (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)       :  (Sd/-)

Appendix – Nil.

                                                                                  (By Order)

                                                                                       (Sd/-)

                                                                  Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Leelamma. N., Sreesailam, Ambalavattackal,

                    Pathanamthitta – 689 645.                      

               (2) Jimson, Service Engineer, MRF Ltd.,

                    TC-55/807, 808, 809, Sankar Nagar Road,

                    Niramonkara, Kaimanam.P.O.,

                    Thiruvananthapuram, Pin – 695 040.

               (3) Jino George, Manager, Union Tyre Agencies,

                    Kunnithottathil Building, Ring Road,

                    St. Peter’s Jn., Pathanamthitta – 689 645.

                (4) The Stock File.