IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
Dated this the 26th Day of February 2021
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.31/2020
T.V.Mohanan : Complainant
Karthika
Karingannoor P.O
Velinalloor Village
Kottarakkara Taluk,Kollam-691516
V/s
R.Anilkumar : Opposite party
Dealer
4B Autos&Tyres
Chunkathara, Oyoor-691510.
FINAL ORDER
E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M,President
This is a case based on a complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
On 12.01.2019 the complainant bought 4 tubeless tyres having 1 year manufacturing warranty for his Honda car bearing No. KL-24K8550 by paying a total cost of Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party. The opposite party has given 1 year warranty for the tyres vide warranty card dated 12.01.2019. The warranty card itself guarantees that if the tyre is less than 50% used and been out or bulge, then pay 50% of purchasing price and take new tyre of same size within 1 year of purchase. The complainant has been using the car for his personal purpose only. On 7th September 2019 a tearing found on one tyre and it became useless for travelling. The tearing happened due to the mechanic failure of the tyre. The complainant has used less than 50% of its using. The tearing of the tyre happened not of any fault of the complainant. The tyre did not hit any sharp object or any other materials. The tearing happened solely due to the manufacturing defects. Though the complainant informed the matter to the opposite party on 15.07.2019, his response was very ridiculous. The complainant is eligible for compensation as per warranty. The complainant demanded to give him a new tyre of same size by paying 50% of the price. But the opposite party deliberately denied his claim which is against natural justice and also the provisions of warranty agreement. Hence the complaint.
Notice issued by the complainant was served on 25.01.2020. As there was no sitting notice was repeated and the same was served on 15.10.2020. In response to the said notice opposite party was present in person on 02.11.2020. Though he was directed to file version within time he has not turned up, nor filed any version. Hence the opposite party was set exparty on 01.12.2020.
Though the case was posted for exparty evidence on 01.01.2021, both the complainant and the opposite party remained absent and there was no representation even for the complainant. Hence the document produced by the complainant along with the complaint is marked as Ext.A1&A2 and taken up for order.
The specific allegation of the complainant is that one of the 4 tubeless tyres purchased by him from the opposite party is having manufacturing defect and the same became defective within 6 months of its use and therefore he is entitled to get it replaced by new tyre on payment of 50% of its price as per the terms of Ext.A1 warranty condition. Though he informed the matter to the opposite party dealer of the disputed tyre, he has shown a ridiculous response and not replaced the tyre. The complainant was ready to pay 50% of the purchase price and take new tyre of the same size. According to the complainant he was using his vehicle only for his personal purpose and was using the vehicle in a very cautious manner that he use the tyres less than 50% of the tyre using and the tearing of the tyre happened not any fault of the complainant and the tyre did not hit any sharp object or any other materials and the tearing happened solely due to the manufacturing defect. However the complainant has not produced the invoice or bill evidencing that he has purchased the disputed tyre from the opposite party, 4-B Autos and Tyres, Chunkathara, Oyoor nor the complainant filed any affidavit to the effect that he purchased the tyre from the opposite party and the bill or invoice issued by the opposite party is missing. Ext.A1 is a copy of the warranty card. The original of it is not seen produced which would not show that the tyre was sold by the opposite party to the complainant. Neither the name of the shop or the dealer and the name of the complainant to whom it was sold etc. and the seal of the dealer has not find a place in Ext.A1 warranty card. Ext.A2 is the vehicle alignment report which would not connect the sale of the tyre to the complainant by the opposite party. The maximum that can be inferred from Ext.A2 document is that the vehicle bearing No.Kl 24 K 8550 Honda car belongs to the complainant was subjected to vehicle alignment test even if the alignment of the vehicle is perfectly connect the same would not be helpful to the complainant to establish that the disputed tyre was sold by the opposite party to him for valid consideration.
In view of the materials discussed above it is clear that the complainant has miserably failed to establish at least prima facie that the disputed tyre was purchased from the shop of the opposite party for valid consideration. In other words no documentary evidence to prove that defective tyre was sold by the opposite party for valid consideration to the complainant. The opposite party failed to establish that there is valid relationship as vendor and purchaser of the tyre between the opposite party and the complainant and that the tyre was purchased for valid consideration. In the circumstance we are of the view that the complaint will not stand at all. Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed.
In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
No costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the th day of February 2021.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.A1 : Copy of vehicle alignment report
Ext.A2 : Copy of warranty card
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/- Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
