O R D E R
Sri. George Baby (President):
The complaint is filed by complainant u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting relief from the opposite party.
2. The complainant’s case is brief as follows: That the complainant had purchased Two Michelin TL Type from the opposite party on payment of Rs. 16,499.71/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred and ninety nine and seventy one paisa only). The said purchase was on 19/04/2018, the complainant averred that the said tyreswere replaced to the complainant’s vehicle on the same day by the opposite party at their shop. One of the tyre was damaged after two days, the said tyre carrying the warranty of one year. The complainant had informed the matter of damage to the opposite party and then the opposite party takes back the damaged tyre and issued an old one to the complainant for temporary arrangements. At the time of acceptance of the damaged tyre the opposite party had made to believe the complainant that they will replace a new tyre at the earliest. But the opposite party had not replace the new tyre to the complainant as agreed. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party’s above said act is clear unfair trade practice and because of that the complainant had caused much financial loss and agony. Hence this complaint.
3. This Forum had entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite party for appearance. The opposite party had properly acceptance the notice from this Forum, but he had not come forward to contest the matter and hence the opposite party declared ex-parte on 13/11/2019.
4. On the basis of the complaint and available record this Forum formulated following issues for determination.
(1). Whether this compliant is allowable?
(2). Regarding relief and cost?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant he had filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and the same is in tune with the complaint. The complainant had examined as PW1 and through PW1 Exhibit A1 is marked. Exhibits A1 is the invoice dated 19/11/2018 issued by the opposite party. After the closure of the evidence we heard the complainant.
4. Point No. 1&II :-For the sake of convenience and brevity we would consider Point No.I and II together. The complainant’s specific case is that he had purchased Two Michelin TL Tyre from the opposite party’s shop on 19/11/2018 on payment of Rs. 16,499.71/-. Out of the said two tyres one became damaged after two days and the matter was properly informed to the opposite party. Then the opposite party had taken back the damaged tyres and given an old one to the complainant for the temporary use. The new tyres have the warranty of one year. At the time of acceptance of the damaged tyre the opposite party had assured to the complainant that they will replace the damaged tyre with a new one at the earliest. But the opposite party’s such assurance was not materialized till this time even after the so many request from the part of the complainant. That the complainant further stated that the non-returning of a new tyre as agreed by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and because of that the complainant has suffered much agony financial loss and distress. We have perused Ext. A1 and from that we can easily inferred that the complainant had purchased tyres from the opposite party’s shop on 19/11/2018 and the cost of one tyre comes to Rs. 8250/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only). Nothing has been brought out in evidence to disprove the contentions of the complainant. When we evaluate the evidence before us it is to say that the complainant proved his case successfully and as per the available evidence before us we can see that the opposite party had committed clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the complainant and opposite party is liable to indemnity the loss of the complainant. Hence this complaint is allowable and Point No.I and II found in favour of the complainant.
5. In the result we pass the following orders:
1. The opposite party is directed to refund the price of one tyre
i.e., Rs. 8,250/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Two Hundred and
Fifty only) to the complainant with 10% interest from
19/11/2018 onwards.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and cost of Rs.
3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant
with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.
3. The complainant is directed to return the old tyre at its
present condition which was given to the complainant at the
time of entrustment of damaged tyre to the opposite party at
the time of complying this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30thday of December, 2019.
(Sd/-)
George Baby,
(President)
Smt. N. ShajithaBeevi (Member-I) : (Sd/-)
Sri.NishadThankappan (Member-II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1:Lalu John.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1: The invoice dated 19/11/2018 issued by the opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Copy to:- (1) Lalu John,
KaringozhathilLaluBhavan,Thadiyoor P.O, Ayiroor,
Ranni..
(2) The Proprietor,
New MarutiTyres,Near Government Hospital,
Mallappally West P.O,Mallappally.
(3) The Stock File.
