Date of Filing : 02.11.2011

  Date of Order : 27.03.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

Dated 27^th MARCH 2012

PRESENT

Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL,   …….                PRESIDENT

Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB.                        ……..     MEMBER

Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB.                    ……..     MEMBER

CC No. 211 / 2011

Sri. Arun Kumar.S.K.

S/o. M. Kumar,

No. 35/1, Brace Campus, Vibhoothipura,

(Keelukote), Antaragange Road,

Kolar – 563 101.                                                     ……. Complainant

V/s.

M/s. Shahad Azeez & Sons,

M.H.A. Popular Tyres & Tubes,

Opp. Shahi Mazid, Clock Tower,

Kolar – 563 101.

(By Sri. K.A. Khan, Adv.)                                       …… Opposite Party

ORDER

By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.3,300/- are necessary:

Complainant had purchased a Tube for back wheel of his Motor Cycle from the OP on 05.10.2011 by paying Rs.250/-.  On 24.10.2011 at 9.00 PM in front of the Jain Temple there was puncture.  With great difficulty the vehicle was taken to puncture shop.  On verification, it was found that there was “neck puncture”. Hence, Complainant approached OP on 27.10.2011 and sought compensation, but they refused.  Hence the Complaint.

2.       In this case OP engaged service of OP and filed the version.  Version is neither signed by the OP nor verified by the OP.  Hence it is no version at all.  Therefore it is not summarized. 

3.       Though several opportunities were given none of the parties appeared nor filed their affidavits nor addressed their arguments.  Hence, perused the records.

4.       Points that arise for our consideration are:

POINTS

(A)     Whether there is deficiency in service ?

(B)     What order ?

5.       Our answers to the above points are:

          (A)     Negative

          (B)     As per detailed order for the following reasons

REASONS

6.       Complaint is summarized supra and the same be read herein again.  Reading the Complaint in conjunction with the documents on record, it only establishes that the Complainant had purchased the Tube for back wheel of his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KA-06/E-7390 on 05.10.2011 that’s all and nothing else.

7.       Complainant has stated that on 24.10.2011 at about 9.00 PM there was puncture to his Motor Cycle, on verification, he found that there was neck puncture, hence he informed to OP on 27.10.2011.  Complainant never stated which tube got punctured on 24.10.2011.  Whether puncture was to the front wheel or to the back wheel is not whispered at all.  Even assuming that there was a puncture of the neck of the Tube, it cannot be said that it is manufacturing defect of the Tube.  The rash driving on a stone road or mud road may cause puncture to the neck for which how can be OP is liable?  There is no answer.  No expert has come and sworn or stated that there was manufacturing defect in the Tube which was purchased from the OP and that is the cause for puncture.  There is no such material. Hence, we hold the above points accordingly and pass the following order:

ORDER

1.       Complaint is dismissed.

2.       Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.

3.       Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of March 2012)

T. NAGARAJA          K.G.SHANTALA           H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO

    Member                         Member                                       President

SSS