SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> Case of the complainant is that he was purchased two good year radial tubeless tyres for an amount of Rs.3908/- for vehicle bearing registration No. KL-4/H-8505. The opposite parties offered a mileage of 30000 kms. The said tyres were worn out and damaged after its running of 70000 kms. Complainant complained this fact before the opposite parties and requested for replacement. But they insulted the complainant. Hence he approached before this Forum. <br /> 2. Opposite parties filed version stating that the claim is not maintainable. The damage of the tyre was caused not due to any mechanical or manufacturing defect. But it was happened due to the mechanical irregularity in the vehicle due to which load distribution is improper causing one side wear. Hence claim is not allowable.<br /> 3. Considering the contentions of the complainant and opposite parties this Forum raised the following issues:-<br /> Whether the complainant is entitled for claim amount and compensation from the opposite parties establishing the deficiency as averred in the complaint?<br /> 4. Complainant filed 3 documents and filed proof affidavit. Documents marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Opposite parties filed one document and marked as Ext.B1.<br /> 5. The complainant is running a travel services and holding 5 cars. The opposite parties in the version stating that this complaint is not maintainable since the complaint was purchased the tyres for running his commercial concern. In the complaint he is admitted that he is the owner of 5 cars. This indicates that he is running the travel business as a commercial concern. There is no averment in the complaint that he s running this business for the purpose earning his livelihood by means of self employment and an employee of the said vehicle. From these pleadings it is clear that he was purchased the said tyres for commercial purpose. Hence complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. <br /> 6. The opposite parties produced Ext.B1 document inspection cum analysis report. This report state as follows: “After thorough and careful examination of the tyre, defect noticed in the tyre is camber wear which is a one side wear one shoulder area of tyre and the same is a manufacturing defect. Above said abnormality in the tyre may be due to any mechanical irregularity in the vehicle. Due to which load distribution is improper causing one side wear.” There is no contra evidence for impeaching this report.<br /> This fact clearly indicates that the complainant has no cause of action. Hence complaint dismissed. No order on cost.<br /> Complaint dismissed.<br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH:<br /> Sd/-SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN:<br /> Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI: <br /> <br /> APPENDIX:-<br /> Evidence of the complainant:-<br /> <br /> PW1 - Roshan Thomas (Witness)<br /> Ext.A1 - Cash/Credit Bill (Photo copy)<br /> Ext.A2 - Letter dated 5.7.2003 (Photo copy)<br /> Ext.A3 - Letter dated 24.7.2003 (Photo copy)<br /> <br /> Evidence of the opposite parties:- <br /> <br /> Ext.B1 - Letter dated 24.7.2003 (Photo Copy)<br /> <br /> // True Copy // By Order<br /> <br /> <br /> To Senior Superintendent<br /> Complainant/Oppo.parties/S.F.<br /> <br /> Typed by:-pr/- <br /> Compared by:- <br />