By Sri.  Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member.

The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-

1.         The complainant is the owner of a bus bearing No. KL 10 BD 7064 and he was also working as driver of the same bus.  The complainant is solely depending upon the income deriving from bus service for his livelihood. The complainant had intended to replace two damaged tyres of the bus with two new tyres. After making a detailed search for good quality tyres, the complainant had contacted the first opposite party for purchasing tyres. The first opposite party had shown L235/75R17.5 X MULTI Z TL type tyre to the complainant and make him convinced that those tyres are good in quality and durability. It was also promised that five years of warranty was provided to the tyres. Believing the words and assurance made by the first opposite party, on 12/07/2022 the complainant had purchased two tyres after making payment of Rs.34,000/-. It is averred in the complaint that price of single tyre is Rs.17,000/-. The two tyres purchased from the first opposite party were manufactured by the second opposite party.  On 12/07/2022 the complainant replaced the worn out tyres of the bus with two tyres purchased from the first opposite party. But on 19/07/2022 one of the tyres was bursted out. So the complainant approached the first opposite party for relief. The first opposite party had assured of replacement of damaged tyre but they did not take any step to replace the damaged tyre. So the complainant was compelled to kept the bus in idle for 16 days and thereby incurred   loss of earning of Rs. 4,000/- per day. Thereafter the complainant himself purchased another tyre after spending his own money to make use of his bus in running condition. On 27/08/2022 the complainant had submitted a written complaint before the first opposite party. On 29/08/2022 a technician of the second opposite party examined the damaged tyre. On the basis of examination the technician submitted a report. It is alleged by the complainant that examination of tyre was conducted in his absence and no details were also collected. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties violated the promise given at the time of purchase of the tyres. The act of the opposite parties caused mental agony, hardship and financial loss to the complainant. The complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the cost of one damaged tyre. The complainant also prayed for the direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.64,000/-  as loss of earning due to halting  of bus service for 16 days . The complainant prayed for another direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for the  sufferings of mental agony. The complainant also demined Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite parties as the cost of the proceedings.

2.         The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite parties .the first opposite party received notice and filed version. The second opposite party received notice on 31/07/2023 but did not file version. Hence the Commission set the second opposite party as exparte.  But the first opposite party did not file affidavit hence contentions raised in the version cannot be accepted as there was no backing of evidence .So the Commission set the first opposite party as exparte.

3.         The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of evidence. The documents produced by the complainant is marked as Ext. A1 and A2 documents. Ext. A1 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 12/07/2022 for Rs. 34,000/- issued by the first opposite party to complainant.  Ext. A2 document is the copy of tyre inspection report prepared by technical expert of the second opposite party. There was no evidence available from the sale of the opposite parties.

4.         Heard the complainant in detail. Perused affidavit and documents thoroughly. The commission considered following points to adjudicate the matter:-

1. Whether the act of the opposite parties are amounted to deficiency in service?
2. Relief and cost?

5.         Point No.(i) and (ii)

The Commission is considering the above said points together as those are closely rated to each other. It has come out in evidence that the complainant had purchased two tyres from the first opposite party after making payment of Rs. 34,000/- and Ext. A1 document would show that the price of the two tyres is Rs. 17,000/- each. The tyres were purchased on 12/07/2022 and those were was began to use on the same day of purchase. But on 19/07/2022 one of the tyres brusted out and became useless. It is argued by the complainant that he had immediately contacted the first opposite party for redressing his grievance.  According to the complainant the first opposite party had agreed to replace after examination of damaged tyre.  It is argued that though the complainant had persistently contacted for replacement of tyre no action was taken by the first opposite party.  It is further  argued that due to the negligent act of the first opposite parties vehicle was  kept in idle for 16 days thereby causing loss of earing of Rs. 64,000/-. According to the complainant he was earning Rs.4,000/- per day. Finlay the complainant was compelled to purchase another new tyre by using own money.

6.         It is argued by the complainant that on 27/08/2022 the complainant had again approached the first opposite party. On the basis of request made by the first opposite party the complainant had submitted a written complaint. On 29/08/2023 a technical expert of the second opposite party examined the tyre and prepared a report. The content of the report is challenged by the complainant. It is argued that no details were collected from him and examination of tyre was conducted in his absence. It is alleged by the complainant that tyre was damaged due to manufacturing defect.

7.         In the evaluation of evidence, it can be find that two tyres were purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties on 12/07/2022. It is argued by the complainant that one of the tyres was bursted on 19/07/2022. So the damage was occurred within one week of time from the date of purchase. There is no contra evidence available in this regard. Moreover Ext. A2 document would show that tyre was brusted out and it was in a damaged condition.  It is evident from the pleadings as well as documents produced by the complainant that damage was caused to one of the tyres purchased from the first opposite party.  It is the case of the complainant that the damage was occurred due to manufacturing defect. Ext.A2 document state that over loading , over inflation , heating , high tension in the casing play cables , poor positioning of the tyre on the rim and damages , cuts done at the time of fitting or stripping  were caused damage to the tyre. The Ext. A2 document would also state that there is no manufacturing defect and therefore unable to extend warranty benefits.

8.         It is specifically argued by the complainant that technical report was prepared without collecting any details from him. Moreover examination of tyre was conducted in his absence. There is no contra evidence availed before the Commission against the argument of the complainant.  Ext. A2 document does not speak about presence of the complainant at the time of examination of tyre. Moreover the report prepared by the technical expert does not pointed out specific reason for brusting of tyre. So the Commission cannot consider technical expert report as trust worthy and believable. Moreover Ext.A2 document does not detailing source of its findings. So the Commission consider that tyre was damaged due to defect in manufacturing.

9.         It has come out in evidence that tyre was damaged on 19/07/2022 and same was immediately reported to the first opposite party. It is argued by the complainant that he had repeatedly contacted the first opposite party for replacement of tyre. After 16 days of time, the complainant was compelled to purchase another tyre. Thereafter, on 27/08/2022 the complainant had submitted a written complaint requesting replacement of tyre under warranty. Ext.A2 document is supporting the argument of the complainant. Ext. A2 document would show that a complaint was received on 27/08/2022 only. The argument of the complainant is that tyre was damaged on 19/07/2022 and same was reported immediately.  So a considerable delay was occurred from the side of the first opposite party to address the grievance of the complainant.  So the Commission find that the negligent act of the first opposite party caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

10        The complainant has argued that due to the deficient acts of the opposite parties he had sustained loss of earning of Rs. 64,000/-. It is argued that the complainant was earning Rs.4,000/- each per day from the bus service. But the Commission find that no document is produced by the complainant to prove his pleadings of loss of earnings. More over the complainant was also failed to produce any documents pertaining to the bus service. So Commission is declined to make any order with regard to prayer of loss of earning made in the complaint.

11.       It has come out in evidence that the tyre manufactured by the second opposite party and sold out buy the first opposite party had suffered manufacturing defect. So first and second opposite parties are liable to refund Rs. 17,000/- the as the cost of the damaged tyre. The Commission also find that the acts of the opposite party has caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant so the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The Commission is hesitant to consider the prayer for huge quantum as compensation amount made in the complaint. The complainant is entitle for a compensation in a reasonable amount. So the Commission consider that Rs.10,000/- will be reasonable amount as compensation for the deficient act of the opposite parties. Moreover the opposite parties are liable to pay cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The commission consider that Rs. 5,000/- will be reasonable amount as cost of proceedings. The Commission also consider that the first opposite party has committed negligence and there by caused delay in reporting the incident of damage occurred to the tyre to the second opposite party.  So the first opposite party is liable to pay compensation for his act of negligence. So the first opposite party is liable to pay another 5,000/-as compensation to the complainant.

On the basis of discussion made above the commission is allowing the complaint in the following manner:-

1. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount Rs.17,000/- (Rupees seventeen thousand only) to the complainant  as cost of the damaged tyre.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only ) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
4. The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for the negligence and there by caused delay in reporting the incident before the second opposite party.

The opposite parties shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of this order otherwise the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till date of realisation

Dated this 29^th  day of  April, 2024.

MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

                                                   PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

         MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 and A2

Ext.A1: Copy of tax invoice dated 12/07/2022 for Rs. 34,000/- issued by the first

            opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A2: Copy of tyre inspection report prepared by technical expert of the second

            opposite party.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil

MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

      PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

                                      MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER