KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 872/2004
JUDGMENT DATED : 31.01.2011
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE. SHRI . K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANTS
1. Moopan Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Represented by the Managing Director,
X/314K.N.H.47,
Byepass, Nettoor P.O.,Kochi-5
2. The Manager, Moopan Motors Pvt. Ltd., X/314K.N.H.47,
Byepass, Nettoor P.O.,Kochi-5
3. The Manager,
Bridge Stone ACC India Ltd.,
Panackal Towers, First Floor, 42/1629 A and D, Market Road, North, Ernakulam, Kochi-14
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. George Cherian & Others)
Vs.
RESPONDENT
K.A. Abraham, Kaleekkal House,
Mazhukeer, Kallissery,
Chengannoor
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Ratheesh P.R.)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Eranakulam in O.P. No. 619/2003. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in the above O.P. The appellant prefers this appeal against the order passed by the Forum below that directed the opposite parties to refund the price of the defective tyre Rs. 3,250/- to the complainant and to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience of the complainant and to pay Rs. 1,000/- less cost of the proceedings.
The complainant has a case that on 28.10.2000 he took delivery as Toyota Qualis from the opposite party. On 30.12.2000, the complainant was on his way to Vennikulam from Ranni, he felt that the vehicle was moving towards left side out of his control. On inspection he could find that the left tyre on the front portion has got damaged by a tear on its outer part having about 2 inches length. The tire was thus torn and damaged definitely due to the manufacturing defect or the defect in quality. He produces the tyre before the local agent with demand to replace the damaged tyre. He received the damaged tyre for sending it to the Ernakulam office for replacing it. After a few weeks the same tyre was returned back to the complainant without any explanation or replacement. The complainant was also having an experience that the tire fitted on the front right side got damage by a tear on the inner side of it. Both these incidents happened within the warranty period prescribed by the manufacture/dealer. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are bond to replace the damaged tyre and to compensate the complainant. The opposite parties appeared and filed their written version. They denied allegation of the complainant that the damage of the tyre occurred not due to the manufacturing defect. According to them this happens normally on night drives that lacks judgment and the tire side walls will go indeed contact with road edges which will be normal very sharp and often to a height 6 to 8 inches and caused severe damage to the side walls and weeks with portion. OPs are not ready to replace the tires since the tyres would not come under warrantee given by the manufacturing company. It was not the duty of the opposite parties to replace the tyre for the misuse and reckless driving of the vehicle. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite parties. The 3rd opposite party except the above opposite parties contented that there was no deficiency in service on their part and the complainant may be dismissed with cost.
The evidence consists of proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext. A1 to A7 marked as documents. The opposite party examined 2 witnesses and marked documents Ext. B1 to B3. The Forum below heard both sides and found that the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a new Toyota Qualis from the opposite parties. But within the period of warrantee the tire of the vehicle got damaged due to manufacturing defect. The opposite parties made contention that there was no manufacturing defects in the tyre and the damage was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and it was admitted that the damages was within the period of warrantee. There is no evidence to show that the damages to the tyres were due to the reason for negligent driving of the vehicle. The Forum allowed the complaint.
This appeal prefers from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. On this day this appeal came before this Commission. The Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of the Appeal Memorandum that the defect alleged in the complaint to prove that the damage of the tyre caused due to the manufacturing defect. The appellant argued that above mentioned defect on the tyre occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the complainant. But there is no evidence available to support their argument. Very same time the damage of the tyre occurred within the warrantee period. Thus a new vehicle purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. It is not necessary to raise such allegation against the opposite party by the complainant. We heard in detail and perused the evidence of both parties and we are seeing that there is no apparent error in the order passed by the Forum below. It is strictly accordance with the provisions of law and evidence and as per the spirit of the object of the Consumer Protection Act.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective expenses. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
