CC Filed on 10.08.2009<br /> Disposed on 18.11.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 18th day of November 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 61/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Chandrappa,<br /> S/o. Chikkamuniyappa,<br /> Major,<br /> r/o. Kodiramasandra,<br /> Tamaka,<br /> Kolar Taluk.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. M.G. Venkatareddy & Others ) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Prerana Motors,<br /> No. 132/15,<br /> Lalbag Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 027.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Prerana Motors,<br /> Branch Office,<br /> Bye Pass, Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. Kusuma Krishnamurthy & Others ) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay Rs.80,000/- to complainant with interest costs, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant purchased a new TATA ACE mini goods vehicle on 22.08.2007 from OP.1 who is authorized dealer of the said vehicle. The complainant borrowed loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from Indus Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Bangalore for payment of consideration towards the purchase of said vehicle. The loan is repayable on monthly installment. <br /> <br /> OP.1 had given warranty for the said vehicle for a particular period. It is alleged that within that warranty period on 07.12.2007 all the four tyres of the vehicle became defective and unusable. The complainant approached OP.2 which is a Branch Office at Kolar of OP.1 and stated regarding the defects in the tyres on 08.12.2007. It is alleged that OP.2 removed the said tyres and parked the vehicle in front of its office and assured the complainant to arrange for new tyres within 7 days from 08.07.2007. Further it is alleged that the OPs subsequently showed totally hostile attitude towards complainant, though it was their duty to rectify the defect. <br /> <br /> It is alleged that as new tyres were not given the complainant could not run the vehicle and he sustained loss of more than Rs.1,00,000/-. Further it is alleged that the OPs violated warranty conditions and misbehaved with complainant and they did not comply with the demand inspite of issue of legal notice. Therefore he claimed Rs.80,000/- as compensation with interest.<br /> <br /> 3. The OPs appeared and filed their common version. They admitted the sale of vehicle to complainant. Their main contentions are made out in para.11 and 13 of their version, which are as follows: <br /> Para.11 “ The respondent submits that as per the terms and conditions of the sale of the vehicle a copy of the owner’s manual is supplied to the petitioner in which the warranty terms and conditions clearly shows in clause No.4 that, as for such parts, as tyres, batteries, rubber parts, Electrical Equipment and fuel injection pumps not manufactured by us but supplied by other parties, this warranty shall not apply but buyers of the vehicle shall be entitled to, so-for as permissible by law all such rights as we may have against such parties under their warranties in respect of the tyres”. <br /> <br /> Para. 13 “The respondent submits that the petitioner approached the respondent No.2 stating that there is defect in tyres on 04.12.2007. The respondent No.2 requested the petitioner to approach M.R.F dealers, Bangalore by furnishing the address and to get replacement of the tyres with them on 04.12.2007. Copy of letter is produced herewith. Accordingly the petitioner returned the tyres to M.R.F., dealer at Bangalore requested them to replace the tyres. The M.R.F dealer at Bangalore requested the petitioner to collect the New Tyres at the Branch office at Kolar by giving a letter dated 08.12.2007 to the petitioner. Copy of the said letter is produced herewith. The petitioner has not collected the new tyres from M.R.F dealers at Kolar by paying the difference amount on prodate basis. The respondent is not responsible for the same”.<br /> <br /> The OPs have also taken other contentions alleging that the complainant trespassed into the premises of OP.2 at Kolar and forcibly removed 3 tyres, etc., which are not so relevant for our purpose. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. The Deputy Manager of OP.1 filed affidavit by way of evidence. The complainant did not file affidavit inspite of granting several opportunities. Therefore the Learned Counsel for OPs is heard and the case is posted for orders. <br /> <br /> 5. From the beginning the OPs contended that for the defect in tyres they were not responsible and the grievance if any should be made before the manufacturer of tyres. In the present case, it appears the complainant had approached M.R.F tyres the manufacturer and had also received a communication dated 08.12.2007 from them agreeing to replace the alleged defective tyres by offering brand new tyres on payment of nominal amount and local taxes. The complainant as well as OPs have produced the copy of the said letter issued by M.R.F tyres to complainant. In the reply to the legal notice also they made their stand clear. The complainant has not produced any warranty agreement given by OPs undertaking to replace the defective tyres within warranty period. Therefore we hold that the OPs have clearly made out their defence and it appears the complainant frivolously filed this complaint against the OPs, though knowing that the liability of replacing the defective tyres was with manufacturer of tyres. Ordinarily we do not impose costs even if the complaint is dismissed. But in the present case awarding costs to OPs is just and necessary. Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- payable to OPs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 18th day of November 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />