BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                               : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 40/2022 Filed on 28/01/2022

ORDER DATED: 06/03/2024

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

1. This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:
2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party.  The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegation raised by the complainant.   
3. The case of the complainant in short is that she purchased 2 tyres (Bridge stone) from the opposite party on 16/11/2021 by paying value of the same.  After purchase wheel alignment and wheel balancing was also done from the opposite party.  The opposite party also offered a free checkup within 3 months from the date of purchase.  Towards the value of the tyre and charges for wheel alignment and wheel balancing, the complainant has paid Rs.6,850/- only to the opposite party. Both tyres were provided with 3 years warranty.  According to the complainant just after 2 months from the date of purchase of the tyre, it is noticed that one side of the both tyres were seen wear out which is not expected from a new brand tyre.  The complainant approached the nearby workshop and the mechanic informed the complainant that the same was caused due to the improper wheel alignment.  Hence the complainant approached the opposite party with the complaint, but the opposite party was not ready to redress the grievances of the complainant by replacing the tyres with new one.  Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing her grievances. 
4. The opposite party filed written version contending that the complaint is bad for non joinder parties as the workshop in which the complainant approached for getting the tyre repaired is not made a party to this complaint.  The opposite party admitted that the complainant has approached the opposite party for purchase of 2 tyres of Bridgestone company which is of high quality.  According to the opposite party at the time of purchase of the tyres it was clearly mentioned to the complainant that the tyres will be replaced only in the event of a manufacturing defect which is the policy of the tyre manufacturing company.  The complainant after purchase of the tyres, requested the opposite party to do a wheel alignment and wheel balancing and the same has been done by the opposite party on the request of the complainant.  The opposite party further contended that Instead of approaching this opposite party the complainant went to a workshop and hence the opposite party suspects the genuineness of the complaint with regard to the damage of the tyres.  According to the opposite party if the complaint was genuine she would have approached the opposite party at the first instance since she purchased the tyres and done wheel alignment from the opposite party.  According to the opposite party when the complainant approached the opposite party regarding the problem in tyres, the opposite party noticed that the wheel arm had been changed.  Hence the opposite party strongly apprehends the problem regarding the tyres was caused either by the careless handling of the tyres by the workshop people or by the careless use of the complainant.  The opposite party categorically stated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant.  According to the opposite party the relief claimed by the complainant is unsustainable in law and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost and compensatory cost to the opposite party. 
5. Evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.P1 to P4 from the side of the complainant.  The opposite party not marked any documents from the side of the opposite parties
6. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

on the part of the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the
3.  
4. Order as to cost?

Heard.  Perused complaint, affidavit and documents.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant herself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P6 were produced and marked.  Ext.P1 is the copy of the police complaint filed by the complainant.  Ext.P2 is the invoice issued by the opposite party at the time of sale of the tyres which includes the charges for wheel alignment as well as wheel balancing.  Ext.P3 is the document issued by the opposite party after the wheel alignment conducted on 16/11/2021 immediately after purchase of the tyres.  Ext.P4 is the photographs of two tyres it shows the wear out of the tyres. Though the opposite party filed written version raising serious contention, the opposite party failed to file affidavit or mark documents to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant.  In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.  It is well settled legal proposition that mere filing a written version is not enough to treat it as evidence.  The contention in the pleadings cannot be accepted without supporting evidence.  Here in this case by not filing affidavit or documents to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant.  It is an admitted fact that the tyres were purchased on 16/11/2021 and the wheel alignment as well as wheel balancing were done on the same day.  Mere contention that the damage to the tyre might have been caused from the workshop is not acceptable in the absence of any supporting evidence.  By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Ext.P1 to P4, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her case against the opposite party. From the available evidence before this commission, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party. It is also evident from the evidence adduced by the complainant that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite party.  As the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  In view of the above discussions we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant. 

7. In the result the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party is directed to refund of Rs.6,850/- (Rupees Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Only) to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @9% from the date of order till the date of realization/remittance.  After complying the order the opposite party can take back the two tyres from the complainant.       

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 06^th day of March,  2024.

C.C. No. 40/2022

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

5. COURT EXHIBIT:

                          NIL