By G. Yadunadhan, President:

 

            The case of the complainant is that she had purchased a Mahindra & Mahindra Max Pickup van from opposite party-1 bearing Registration No. KL18 B 6424. The vehicle was used according to the terms and conditions stipulated by O.P.1. The tyre of the said vehicle was supplied by Appolo Tyres. Second opposite party is the dealer of the said tyre. After a lapse of 9 months the four tyres of the vehicle became damaged and out of that two of them were sent to opposite party-2. O.P.2 never accepted the defects, instead of verifying the defects they simply blamed. It has happened due to the careless act of the complainant. The said tyre was in the custody of the opposite party after a repeated demand, opposite party failed to replace or pay the actual value of the tyre. The act of the opposite parties is gross negligence and deficiency of service. Hence complainant is seeking relief against opposite parties to direct them to pay an amount of Rs.9000/- along with compensation.

 

            O.P.1 after serving notice entered in appearance. O.P.2 notice served called absent and set exparte. According to O.P.1 complaint is barred by limitation. Further stating that complainant is not a consumer. According to the complainant itself complainant had purchased the vehicle for operating it for commercial purpose by engaging paid drivers. Complainant had purchased the Mahindra & Mahindra jeep after personally inspecting the vehicle and being convinced of the same. Further submits that this opposite party had provided warranty for the tyres fitted to her vehicle is denied. Opposite party is only a dealer of the said vehicle and never provided warranty for the vehicle or any of the tyres. As stated by the complainant the complainant has however not made the manufacturer of the vehicle as a party to the proceedings that the complainant having brought her vehicle to the workshop of opposite party with the complaint that the tyres of the vehicle had worn out and informed that as per the terms and conditions of warranty for the vehicle. The tyre forwarded to the authorized service centre ie. M/s. Appolo Tyres for their inspection. The 2^nd O.P. refused to replace the tyre stating that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre and same cannot be replaced under warranty. SinceO.P.1 has no control over the decision of the 2^nd O.P., this fact intimated to the manufacturer of the vehicle they not replied so far. This O.P. denies the allegation made by the complainant. Hence complainant is not entitled to get any sort of relief from the O.P.1. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

            Points for consideration (1) Whether deficiency  on the part of opposite parties? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation, if so what is the relief?

 

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 were marked on complainant’s side. O.P.1 has no oral evidence or documentary evidence. Expert opinion marked as Ext.C1.

 

            On perusal of Ext.A1 it is only an indication of purchase of vehicle not for the purchase of tyres.  According to the complainant O.P.1 assured two years replacement warranty of every part including tyres that were born out from Ext.A6. Ext.C1 produced by expert shows that the defects appeared but final conclusion is that “ the two tyres attached to the same vehicle are having different damages. These defects appear to have occurred due to operational problems and not due to any manufacturing defect of the tyres.” O.P.1 is only a dealer, the manufacturer is not impleaded as a party in this proceeding, the manufacturer is the only person who can say truth before this Forum. The complainant had failed to bring the actual party before this Forum. More over Ext.C1 report is also very clear that there is no manufacturing defect occurred. Such circumstance there is no merit in this complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the 1^st day of December 2010.

Date of filing: 26-05-2006

 

 

            SD/- PRESIDENT                   SD/- MEMBER           SD/- MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

 

A1. Photocopy of Retail Invoice dt. 30-9-2005.

A2. Photocopy of letter.

A3. Photocopy of Rejection Letter

A4. Photocopy of letter dt. 7-11-2006.

A5. Photocopy of letter dt. 19-12-2006.

A6. Photocopy of Warranty.

 

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

            Nil

 

C1. Report of Inspection of Joint Director (RT) The Rubber Research Institute of India.

 

Witness examined for the complainant:

 

Jameela (Complainant)

 

Witness examined for the opposite party.

 

            None

 

 

                                                                                                SD/- PRESIDENT

 

                        // True copy //

 

(Forwarded/By order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.