KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL NO.447/04 JUDGMENT DATED: 22.4.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF Kollam in OP.277/02 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER M/s MRF Ltd.,124 Greams Road, : APPELLANT Madras-6 Having branch office at T.C.No.26/1279(1), Panavila Thiruvananthpauram. (By Adv.Nair Ajaykrishnan) Vs. 1. Nazeer, : RESPONDENTS Mambravallil Thekkathil, Adinadu South, Kattilkadavu.P.O., Karunagappally. 2. The Proprietor, Geo Tyres, National Highway, Karunagappally. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.277/02 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The opposite parties/appellants are under orders to replace tyre on payment of Rs.1000- by the complainant. There is no orders as to compensation and costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a new tyre in February,02 for an amount of Rs.3700/- and after running 800 KMs the tyre was broken. The opposite parties agreed to replace the tyre on payment of Rs.2358/- + tax. 3. The case of the opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable. It is the case of the complainant that the tyre was examined by the technical service engineer of the opposite parties and it was found that 69% of the tread has been worn out. It is the case that the same was occasioned on account of the running the vehicle without sufficient air in the tyre. It is also contented that as per Section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act the tyre has to be subjected to laboratory testing. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 the complainant; Ext.P1 copy of inspection docket of DW1 the technical service engineer of the opposite parties. The Forum has noted that the inspection report was not produced before the Forum. And further that it is admitted that the tyre has been used for running 800 KMs only. Considering the fact that the complainant has used the tyre for running 800 KMs the Forum ordered to pay Rs.1000/- by the complainant and directed the opposite parties to replace the tyre. On a perusal of the evidence adduced we find that there is no case for the opposite parties as, it can be seen from the cross examination of PW1, that the complainant has run the vehicle for the distance of more than 800 KMs. The only suggestion put in the cross examination is that vehicle has been used continuously without having sufficient air in the tyre. PW1 was not questioned as to the details of the distance run by the vehicle or as to the load carried in the vehicle. It was in the above circumstances that the Forum found that there is ample evidence to justify the case of the complainant. We find that the contention of the counsel for the appellant that as per Section 13(1) (c) the Forum is bound to forward the tyre to the appropriate Laboratory for testing. It cannot be upheld as the statute leaves sufficient discretion to the Forum in the matter as the purport of the provision is that only in such circumstances that there can not be a decision as to the defect in the goods without proper analysis or test the same is to be sent for testing. Further except just mentioning in the version that the tyre may be sent to the laboratory for testing there is nothing to show that the opposite parties insisted that the tyre should be sent for testing in the laboratory. In the circumstance we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Forum. The appeal is allowed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU | | 
