IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/119/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
25.07.17 04.08.17 29.05.19
Complainant: Sekhar Ghosh
S/o, Ganesh Ch. Ghosh, Vill-Chaltia,
PO-Chaltia, PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742165
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Proprietor of Ghosh Motors,
Babulbona Road, (Bus Stand),
PO-Berhampore, PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant :Sri. Pranab Kr. Das.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party :Sri. Nilabja Datta.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Sekhar Ghosh (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Proprietor of Ghosh Motors. ( here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant in order to purchase a new tire and tube for his Bolero Maxi Truck Hybrid 8WD Pick Up visited the shop of the OP and ordered for the same. On payment of Rs.6,000/- the Complainant purchased those new tire and tube. But at the time of installation the garage man informed the Complainant that the said new tire was not proper for the said vehicle. The Complainant after that requested the OP to change the said tire and tube but unfortunately the OP refused the same.
Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case before this Forum for appropriate relief.
The OP after service of notice filed W/V, contending, inter alia that it is not true that the Complainant requested the OP to change the said tire and tube and the OP refused for the same rather OP sold those tire and tube as per demand of the customer. So, there is no deficiency in his part and the case is false one and is liable to be dismissed.
Now the questions arise whether the Complainant is a consumer and he is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision With Reason
Undoubtedly, the Complainant purchased the new tire and tube model No.195160 R-15 on consideration of Rs.6,000/- and the receipt was issued in this regard by the OP vide Annexure-1. After purchasing the said tire and tube from the OP, the Complainant went to the garage for removal of old tire fitted in his Bolero Maxi Truck Hybrid 2WD Pick Up which the Complainant as an owner used for his own livelihood but the garage man at the time of the installation of the said tire and tube inform to the complainant that the same was not matching with his vehicle as that was not proper size for the said vehicle. After that the Complainant went to the shop of OP for change of the said tire and tube but unfortunately the OP refused for the same. The OP in the written version stated that he is a business man and always sales tire and tube as per wish and demand of the customer and in this case OP sole the impugned tire and tube as per demand of the Complainant. As per written version, the OP does not intentionally sold the model No.195/60R-15 in place of 195 R-15.The O.P sold the same only on demand of the complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the documents filed before us and the arguments advanced by the Ld Advocates of both sides, we are of the view that it may be the fact that the Complainant demanded 195/60/R-15 but the O.P supplied 195 R-15 but there is no evidence that the O.P has supplied wrong model and the complainant has also not produced any expert opinion regarding non fixture of the supplied model of tire & tube to his vehicle. Rather the document filled by the complainant (Annex-1) shows that the complainant has purchased 195/60R-15 by paying the consideration amount of Rs 6000/-. At the time of purchase of any goods the buyer must be beware. If the O.P supplied wrong model the complainant obviously would raise objection at the time of payment. In absence of any independent witness and documents it cannot be held that the O.P has supplied wrong model of tire & tube and there is no evidence that the O.P supplied one model to the complainant and mentioned another model type in the receipt issued by him.
On the basis of above discussion we are of the opinion that the complainant is unable to prove the case and is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and consequentially the points for consideration are decided in negative and the case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 25.07.17 and admitted on 04.08.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/119/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member President.
