IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of April, 2009
Filed on 27.06.06
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.147/06
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.Shajimon.T.D, 1. The Managing Director,
S/o Divakaran, MRF Ltd Company, XXXV/570A,
Thekkevely, NH-47, Palarivattom, Kochi-682025.
Mannancherry.P.O,
Alappuzha. 2. The Manager,
(By Adv.R.Jayasimhan) Matteethra Tyres, Vettukattil Hospital Complex, T.B.Junction, M.C.Road,
Moovattupuzha-688 661
(By Adv.B.Sivadas)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant is the registered owner of the Lorry bearing No.KL-4/4433. The complainant, on 21st April 2004 purchased a tyre for an amount of Rs.4550/-(Rupees four thousand five hundred and fifty only) for the said lorry from the 2nd opposite party. The very next day viz. on 22nd April 2006 when the lorry was going towards Ernakulam, the driver of the vehicle noticed the edge of the said tyre swelling out side. Fortunately the defect of the tyre caught the drivers' attention, or else the vehicle had to meet with a horrendous accident. The driver of the vehicle had to purchase another tyre afresh to continue the journey. The tyre had inherent manufacturing defect. The tyre was brought to the 2nd opposite party and impressed upon him as to the defect of the tyre. The complainant demanded the 2nd opposite party a new tyre or repayment of its cost. The 2nd opposite party apprised of the complainant that the factum of defect as to the tyre has to be informed to the 1st opposite party. As such, the complainant would be informed the outcome within one week. Two weeks there after, the complainant received a 'rejection advice from the 2nd opposite party refusing the legitimate claim of the complainant, the complainant submits. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On sending notice the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the tyre was perfect and was free from any manufacturing defect. The damage of the tyre was the result of the negligent usage of the tyre by the complainant. The technical service engineer of the opposite party examined the tyre, and came to the definite conclusion that the defect of the tyre was the direct outcome of the imperfection of the 'rim' of the vehicle, the opposite party alleges. The tyre sold out to the complainant was of merchantable quality and free from any manufacturing defect. The complaint is mere experimental. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite parties assert.
2. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PWl, and the documents Exbts Al to A5 were marked. The expert commissioner who examined the tyre was examined as CW1. Commission report was marked. The opposite parties did not make it a point to adduce any particular evidence save cross examining the complainant and the expert commissioner.
3. Taking into account the contentions put up by the parties the Issues arose for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the damage of the tyre was the outcome of its defective manufacture? (b) Whether the complainant is entitled to damages sought for?
4. Admittedly, the tyre was purchased from the opposite parties. The cost of the tyre or the damage sustained to the same are not the aspects in issue. Indisputably the tyre purchased from the opposite parties sustained damage for one reason or other. Now the short question arises for consideration is on what ground the tyre developed defective. We made searching survey of the materials placed on record by both the parties. We perused the commissions report. The commission detected a crack on the edge of the tyre in question. He emphatically ruled out the possibility of the said crack being caused by any sharp object. The expert commissioner opined that the defect was the result of defective manufacture. Though he was cross examined thoroughly nothing useful to the opposite party was brought out. The commissioner asserted that the tyre was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. On the contrary, it appears that the opposite party did not adduce any evidence to bring home its contentions. Barring bare statements as to the conclusion of its technical service engineer, the opposite party does not make it a point to bring the said service engineer to the box to prove the same. Going by the facts and circumstance of the case, we have no course open but to accept the contentions of the complainant.
5. In the backdrop of the facts and findings herein above, the opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant the cost of the said tyre viz. Rs.4550/-(Rupees four thousand five hundred and fifty only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the rejection advice till the payment/ recovery of the same. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) and a cost amount of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2009
.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - T.D.Shajimon(Witness)
Ext. A1 - The copy of the Certificate of Registration
Ext. A2 - The Cash/Credit Bill from Matteethra Tyres No.16445
Ext. A3 - The Retail Invoice from Little Flower Tyres & Oils No.3008
Ext. A4 - The letter from Matteethra Tyres No.613 & dated, 26/04/2006 to MRF Ltd
Ext. A5 - The Inspection Dockets No.62610, 62609, 62608 dated, 27/04/2006,
27/04/2006, 27/04/2006 respectively
CW1 - Commission Report
Ext.X1 - The Inspection report of Tyre
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
