DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  7^th  day of December  2015

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                               Date of filing: 16/01/2015

                                                      (C.C.No.9/2015)          

Jayaprakashan,

S/o.Chandran, Kalathil House,

Kannadi Post, Palakkad.                                         -        Complainant

(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan) 

Vs

1.Managing Director,

   M/s.CEAT Tyres,

   Regd.Corporate Office & Head Office,

   At-463, Ceat Mahal,

   Dr.Annie Basant Road, Worli,

   New RPG House, Mumbai - 400 030   

2. The Manager

    M/s.CEAT Tyres Ltd. 33/2673,

    Ponurunni, Chalikkavattam Road,

    Vytila, Cochin- 682 019, Ernakulam

3.The Manager,

    M/s.Radhia Motors, Palakkad

    Coimbatore Road, Koottupatha,

    Palakkad  - 678 007                                   -       Opposite parties

(By Authorised Person)

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President.

Brief facts of complaint.

The Complainant had purchased  Tempo Traveller from 3^rd opposite party on 11/02/2014 by paying  valid consideration.  Manufacturer of vehicle is Force Motors India.  The vehicle is fixed with 4 CEAT Tyres- 2 nos. in the front and 2 nos. in the rear side and one spare tyre.  The complainant is using the vehicle for his livelihood and self employment purpose.

The complainant was using the vehicle with all care and caution. The two tyres fitted on the front side of the vehicle began defective within the 1^st week of August 2014. The defect of the tyres was noted as side wall bulging.  Immediately the complainant has informed and reported it to 3^rd opposite party. On 13-8-2014 the complainant has entrusted the two damaged tyres to the 3rd opposite party.  The other 3 tyres of the complainant’s vehicle was also been damaged. Complainant submitted that the 3^rd opposite party through their letter dated 19/8/2014 has intimated the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties that the damaged tyres had been sent for inspection and repair on 19/8/2014. Now both these tyres are in the custody of 2^nd opposite party. They have neither repaired nor returned it to the complainant.

Complainant further submitted that due to the defect of the said tyres the complainant has purchased two new tyres in the mid of a trip from Alleppey Pavalam Tyre and Mill stores, West of Iron Bridge, St.George Street, Alleppey by paying Rs.12000/- on 12^th September 2014 in order to complete the journey. Due to the defects of the tyres the complainant cancelled 5 long trips to various places and has sustained the financial loss of atleast Rs.25,000/-. Besides that he had to arrange other vehicles  for the parties, since he could not use his vehicle due to the defective tyres and have also caused for tremendous mental agony too.

The tyres which fixed in the complainant’s vehicle are of substandard and of very poor quality. The complainant being a professional driver knows that a new tyre would atleast run for 35000 kms without any defect and problem. Hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 have committed the deficiency in service as the tyres supplied by them suffer from the manufacturing defect. The defect has occurred well within the guaranty period.

The complainant has sent a lawyer notice to the 2^nd opposite party. But they have neither sent a reply nor settle the genuine grievance of the complainant. Hence this complaint.

Complainant also submitted that 3^rd opposite party acted as an agent of opposite parties 1 and 2. They are not at all involved in any deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is not seeking any specific relief against the 3^rd opposite party. But at the same time as being a necessary party  to the proceedings and as the entire transaction and cause of action has been proceeded through them, they are impleaded in the party array as a necessary party.

Hence complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay

1. Rs.60,000/- being the price of 5 tyres alongwith tubes
2. Rs.10,000/- caused for mental agony
3. Rs.25,000/- for the loss of trips due to the manufacturing defect of the tyres and non supply  of the defective tyres in time.
4. Rs.10,000/- as cost of this litigation to the complainant.

Complaint was admitted and was issued notice to opposite parties. After receiving the notice, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties remained absent. Hence set exparte.  3^rd opposite party appeared and filed their version contending that 3^rd opposite party is an unnecessary party to the complaint. They are the authorized dealer of Force Motors Ltd. and act as an agent of complainant as well as opposite parties 1 & 2. They have already taken necessary steps to help the complainant. There was no specific allegation and specific relief claimed against the 3^rd opposite party. Hence complaint against 3^rd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

Complainant and 3^rd opposite party filed their respective chief affidavits. Exts.A1 to A4  are marked from the side of the complainant.    

The following issues are considered

1.  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?

Issues No 1&2

We have perused the documents filed before the Forum. Ext A1 and A3 show that 3^rd opposite party sent a letter to 2^nd opposite party  to inspect the tyres which were damaged due to side wall bulging. From this document it is revealed that the five defective tyres were sent along with this letter to 2^nd opposite party. Ext.A2 bill shows that the complainant had purchased two  tyres  from Alleppey Pavalam Tyre and Mill stores for Rs.12000/-. In Ext A1  it is seen that the date of sale is 11-2-2014. Due to the defects in the tyres fixed with newly purchased vehicle, the complainant was constrained to purchase new two tyres within six  months. 2^nd opposite party has neither  cured the defects of tyres nor replaced with new tyres to the complainant till this date. No contrary evidence to the evidence adduced by the complainant. In the above circumstances we are of the view that it is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Hence 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have the liability to pay the cost of the five tyres. Complainant submitted that he is a driver and driving is the main source of his income  and his family. In order to calculate the financial loss sustained by the complainant due to the cancellation of trips, complainant nothing is produced before the forum.  However the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for mental agony suffered due to the act of opposite parties to the complainant.

Since 3^rd opposite party is an agent of 1^st  and 2^nd opposite party and complainant is not seeking any specific relief against the 3^rd opposite party, 3^rd opposite party is exonerated from the liability.

In the result complaint is allowed. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only)  being the cost of 5 tyres and  tubes, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only)  towards mental agony suffered and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only)  as cost of proceedings.

Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum  for the entire amount from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 7^th  day of December  2015.

     Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

     Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1  – Letter dated 19/8/14 sent to 3^rd opposite party

Ext.A2  - Form 8B

Ext.A3  - Letter dated 20/10/14 sent to 3^rd opposite party

Ext.A4  - Lawyer notice dated 23/10/14 send to 2^nd opposite party 

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Nil

Cost   

Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only)

 Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent