Kerala

Idukki

CC/50/2021

John C p - Complainant(s)

Versus

Libin kurian - Opp.Party(s)

27 Sep 2022

ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING : 05/03/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  17th day of  October 2022

Present :

                     SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                     PRESIDENT

                     SMT.ASAMOL P.                                 MEMBER                      

                     SRI.AMPADY K.S.                               MEMBER                    

CC NO.50/2021

Between

Complainant                        :  John C.P., S/o Paily,

                                                Chakkalakudiyil House,

                                                Kattappana South P.O.,

                                                Kattappana, Pin 685 515.

                                                       (By Adv.Shiji Joseph)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                        And

Opposite Party                     :  1 . Libin Kurian, S/o C.M.Kurian,

                                                    Proprietor,  C.M.Kurian and  Co.,

                                                    Chalakuzhy Bhavan, MC Road Kottayam,

                                                     S. H. Mount P.O., Kottayam, Pin – 686 006.

                                                2 . The Sales Manager,

                                                     Michelin India Pvt Ltd.,

                                                     Poottekkattu Builing Road 717/4,

                                                     Thrikkakara North Ernakulam, 683 503.

                                                3 . The Michelin India Pvt.Limited,

                                                     3rd Floor, Orchid Business Park Sector 48,

                                                     Sohna Road, Gurugram, Haryana 122 002,

                                                     Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

          Complainant's case is briefly discussed as follows:-

 .
          1 . Complainant is running a self employment business as 'Mahindra Gas Service' at Kattappana and the income from the business is the sole source of lively hood of the complainant.

 

 

 

                                                                                                        (Cont.....2)

-2-

 

2 . The first opposite party is the dealer of Michelin Tyres and the second opposite party is the sales Manager of the third opposite party.  The third opposite party is the Managing Director of the Michelin Tyres and the third opposite party manufactures the Tyres.

 

3 . On 18/12/2020, complainant purchased 4 tyres named MH 235/75R 17.5xMulti ZT/L for Rs.54,800/- for use in his Ashok Leyland Boss Truck vehicle from first opposite party.  At the time of purchasing the tyres, first opposite party had assured that the tyres are of  very good quality and have long tyre mileage and also could be used for several re-treading.

 

4 . The complainant used the tyres for his vehicle.   However before covering 1000 Kilometers, the tyres  bust and became useless.  The complainant reported the matter to the fist opposite party and the first opposite party inspected the tyre and assured the complainant that he would replace the tyres or repay its cost within 2 months.

 

5 . The complainant noted the following defects in the tyre the same was developed due to manufacturing defects.

 

1 . Crack developed on the muscles of the tyres.

2 . 3 tyre was busted during before 1000 kilometers use.

3 . One tyre busted after the fist re treading.

 

6 . The truck tyres are brought for using the same expecting long tyre mileage and after that it could be used for re-treading.  The good quality tyre could he used for re-treading 2-4 times after the first tread is worn out.  In this case the complainant could not use the same even for less than 1000 Kms.  Hence the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.54,800/-.  The complainant sustained loss due to the supply of poor quality tyre and hence the complainant is entitled to get the money back and the complainant is also entitled for a compensation which is calculated at Rs.50,000/-.

 

 

     (Cont.....3)

 

 

-3-

 

Hence complainant has prayed the following reliefs:-                                                                                                       

 

a .  First opposite party may be directed to refund Rs.54,800/- towards price of the tyres.

 

b . Also opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost of complaint.

 

Though notice was sent to opposite parties from the Commission, it was returned as unserved.  Hence, Paper  Publication for appearance was done in Indian Express Daily News Paper.  But, there was no appearance or representation from opposite parties before the Commission.  Therefore they were called absent and set exparte.  Thereafter, the case was posted for complainant's evidence.

 

Complainant has filed proof affidavit and 3 documents produced.  These were marked as Exts.P1 to P3 series 4 in numbers.

 

Heard the counsel for complainant and it was taken for orders.

 

The point which arose for consideration is :-

 

 (a) Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties.

 (b) If, so, what reliefs are entitled to complainant.

 

The point is considered.

 

We have perused the documents which were marked from the side of complainant.  After perusing the proof affidavit and documents, we find that complainant has purchased 4 tyres worth Rs.54,800/- from first opposite party on

 

 

  (Cont.....4)

-4-

 

18/12/2018.  Even though limitation period for filing this complaint is ended on 18/12/2020, as per the order passed on 23rd March 2020 by the Honourable Supreme Court of India, the period of lockdown due to Covid Pandamic in computing the limitation period is excluded.  The Honourable Supreme Court held that “the period of limitation in all proceedings under a general and special law, whether or not its delay is condonable, shall stand extended with effect from 15/03/2020 until further  notice”.   Thereafter  the  Honourable  Supreme  Court  has  extended  the limitation period since March 15, 2020 to February 8, 2022.  So, this complaint is filed under the availability of the above said benefit.  Accordingly, this complaint was filed on 05/03/2021 ie, within the time period of limitation.

 

We have perused proof affidavit and produced documents.  In complaint and proof affidavit, the date of purchase of tyres was mentioned on 18/12/2020.  Later, complainant has filed an amendment application and it was allowed.  Thus, the date of purchase of tyres was corrected as 18/12/2018.  As per Ext.P1 ie, tax invoice from opposite party, complainant has received 4 tyres and paid Rs.54,800/- to opposite party.  According to complainant, before covering 1000 Kms these tyres were busted and because useless.  It is alleged that this is a manufacturing defect.  Complainant noted these defects are crack developed on the muscles of the tyres, 3 tyre was busted during before 1000 Kms use and one tyre  busted after the first re-trading.  Complainant has produced photos of these defective tyres.  That was marked as Ext.P3.  We have perused these photos and noticed that the tyres were broke down.  Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence against these allegations.  We are of the considered view that opposite parties are liable either replace the product or refund the money which he paid.  Even though complainant sent lawyer notice to opposite parties, they did not take any steps to resolve these defects.  Lawyer notice is produced and marked as Ext.P2.  According to our view, there is defect in goods sold deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of these opposite parties.  Complainant is entitled for reimbursement of price paid for tyres.  Considering the amount involved and other circumstances, we find that he is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- only instead of Rs.50,000/- claimed and Rs.5000 towards litigation costs.  Hence complaint is partly allowed hereunder.

 

  (Cont.....5)

-5-

 

(a)  Opposite parties are directed to refund  Rs.54,800/- to complainant, being the price of tyres.

 

(b)  Also, opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to complainant within 30 days from the date of copy of receipt of this order, failing which the amounts except litigation cost shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of order, till its realisation.

 

          Pronounced by this Commission on this the 17th day of  October 2022.

 

                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                             SMT.ASAMOL P.,  MEMBER                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                  SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                            SRI.AMPADY K.S.,   MEMBER

                                                                                       

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - copy of Tax Invoice dated 18/12/2018

Ext.P2 -Letter to first and second opposite parties dated 19/12/2020

Ext.P3(s) – Photos 4 in numbers

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

 

                                                                                      Forwarded by Order

 

  

                                                                                 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.