CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 325/2011
Wednesday, the 20th day of June , 2012.
Petitioner : Adv. Shyibi Alex ,
Kannambadom House,
Kidangoor South P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. Sunny Mathew)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The Proprietor,
Parappally Tyres,
Madathilparambil Bldgs.
M.C Road,
Kottayam South P.O
2) Good Year India Ltd.,
Mathura Road, Ballabgarh
Farodabad-121004, Hariyana,
Rep. by Divisional Manager,
Good Year India Ltd.,
Convent Road, Ponnurunni,
Vyttila, Cochin.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 12..12..2011 is as follows:
Petitioner purchased 2 tyres from first opposite party retailer. Tyre was manufactured by second opposite party. According to petitioner on 28..10..2011 while journey the tyre burst. Petitioner states that bursting of the tyre, during journey, is due to manufacturing defect . Hence the petition.
Notice of First opposite party served. First opposite party called absent set ex-parte. According to 2nd opposite party, there is no manufacturing defect to the tyre supplied as stated in the complaint. Petition is filed with a malafide intention to procure new tyre from opposite party. So, opposite party prays for dismissal of petition.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
-2-
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by petitioner and 2nd opposite party.
Point No. 1
Crux of the case of petitioner is that tyre purchased by the petitioner from first opposite party is defective. Petitioner alleges manufacturing defect on the tyre manufactured by the second opposite party. Admittedly the tyre in dispute is not produced before the fora. No expert evidence is adduced with regard to the manufacturing defect of the alleged tyre. Petitioner has not sent disputed tyre to appropriate laboratory as envisaged under section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for expert opinion. In the lack of evidence with regard to allegation of manufacturing defect. We do not find any deficiency in service or un fair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
IN view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost and compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of June, 2012.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner
Nil
Documents for the Opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
