IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Sri. M.Praveen Kumar,Bsc, LLB ,Member
CC.No.331/2012
Koshy Mathew : Complainant
S/o Kunjumon
Malayattumannil
Karavalloor P.O
Karavalloor, Pathanapuram Taluk
Kollam
[By Adv. T.R.Vinod, Kollam]
V/S
1 The Manager : Opposite parties
New Bharath Tyres
Beach Road Branch
Kollam – 691001
2. The Managing Director
Michelin India Tyres Pvt.Ltd, 7th Floor
The Pinnacle , Business Towers
Shooting Range Road, Surajkund
Faridabad – 121001
[By Adv.Saji Issac.K.J & Ajeesh Emmanuel]
ORDER
SRI. M. PRAVEEN KUMAR, MEMBER
The case is based on a complaint filed by Koshy Mathew against 2 opposite parties seeking to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective tyres supplied by them with a defect free tyres purchased by the complainant for Rs.40800/- or in the alternative direct the opposite parties to repay an amount for Rs.40,800/-
(2)
together with interest @ 18% per annum Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- towards costs of the proceedings.
The averment in the complaint is short are as follows:-
The complainant is earning livelihood from the income derived by playing tipper lorry bearing Registration Number .KL 25 A/9843. The complainant purchased two tyres , two tubes and flabs for an amount of Rs.40,800/- on 12/08/2011 vide bill No.5113 from 1st opposite party. The said tyres were manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The outer surface of the tyre began to peel of layer by layer after the initial day and the same was brought to the notice of the 1st opposite party and they informed that a technical expert of the 2nd opposite party will inspect the tyres and will remedy the grievance of the complainant. But the 1st opposite party did not took any measures to attend the grievance of the complainant. Later after repeated request and after the laps of a long time the technical expert Mr. Praveesh Rajan inspected the tyres on 30/07/2012, and found that the tyres purchased from the opposite parties are having manufacturing defect and that is why the middle portion of the outer surface of the tyres peeled off and further informed the complainant that he will make arrangement to replace the tyres with defect free tyres. Even through the technical expert under took to replace the tyres they did not took any steps for the same. Then the complainant sent a registered notice to the 1st opposite party requesting to replace the tyres with defect free tyres or to repay the amount paid by the complainant. But the 1st opposite
(3)
party did not took any steps. There is gross negligence , deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complainant.
Through opposite party 1 received notice from the Forum they have neither appeared nor filed any written version. Hence on 11/5/13 opposite party No.1 set exparte .
Opposite party No.2 entered appearance and filed written version, by contending that the complaint itself not maintainable as admittedly the complainant is using the products for commercial activity and hence not a consumer as stated in the definition. 2nd opposite party immediately attended to the complaint and inspected the tyres. There was no such inaction on the part of this opposite party. Immediately after getting the complaint the 2nd opposite party sent its personal to inspect the tyres and the inspection report was given to the complainant on 30/07/2012. Opposite party 2 communicated the inspection report dated 17/10/2012 wherein it was categorically mentioned that the there was no manufacturing defect and the alleged damage is due to accidental damage caused by sharp or perforated object. A copy of the report is attached hereto for better appreciation by the Hon’ble Forum. In the light of the above situation the 2nd opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint .
Points for consideration :-
(4)
(1). Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
(2).Whether the complainant is entitled to get the amount claimed in the complaint with interest and as prayed for in the complaint?
(3).Reliefs and costs?
The complainant has been examined as PW1and got marked as Ext.P1 to P4. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence .
Point No.1 and 2
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these two points are considered together. Admitted case of the parties that complainant had purchased two tyres, two tubes, flabs from 1st opposite party and those articles are manufactured by the 2nd opposite party . Crucial question arises for consideration is whether the damage of the said two tyres caused due to manufacturing defect s of the 2nd opposite party.
The specific case of the complainant is that on 12/8/11, he purchased two tyres, two tubes and flabs for an amour of Rs.40,800/- vide bill No.5113 from the 1st opposite party. Ext.P1 receipt would establish the same. The further case of the complainant is that after a few days use of the above purchase of the tyres the outer layer of the above two tyres peel off and damaged and useless. He intimated the fact to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and they promised that the tyre will be
(5)
inspected with an expert deputed by the opposite parties on 30/07/2012 the technical expert by name Praveesh Rajan verified the tyre and found that there is manufacturing defect in the tyre and also promised to give new tyres instead of the damaged tyres but the opposite parties have not full filled the promise made by the technical expert. It is also clear from the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ext.P2 to P4 documents ie the complainant caused to send lawyer notice to 2nd opposite party intimating that there is manufacturing defect in the said tyres and it has become damaged. Ext.P3 and P4 document show that the 2nd opposite party has received notice but has not sent any reply disputing the allegation raised in the notice that the outer layer of the tyres peel off due to manufacturing defect and that the expert deputed by the opposite parties found that it has become damaged due to manufacturing defect and has also promised to cause the complainant to replace the tyres and to issue warranty etc. PW1 has clearly sworn the above version in the proof affidavit. After inspection of the tyres the expert deputed by the opposite parties has expressed his opinion that the tyre will be replaced etc stated in the proof affidavit remain unchallenged during cross examination. It is true that the complainant has taken steps to verify the tyres by technical expert deputed by Rubber Board. But the Rubber Board has not sent any report. In view of the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ext.P1 to P4 document it is clear that the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. On evaluating the
(6)
entire materials available on record we come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as claimed in the complaint. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs claimed in the complaint. The points answered accordingly.
In the result the complaint stands allowed, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.40800/-with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint, Rs.5000/- as compensation , Rs.2500/- as costs of the proceedings within 45 days from today jointly and severally, failing which the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 45800/- with interest @12% per annum along with costs of the proceedings from the date of filing the complaint till realization from opposite parties No.1 and 2 jointly and severally from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt.Vijimole.G transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 7th day of June 2018.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
M.Praveen Kumar: Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
(7)
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant
PW1:- Koshy Mathew
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1:- Bill dated 12/08/2011 of Rs.40,800/- numbered 5113
Ext.P2:- Advocate notice
Ext.P3:- Postal receipt dated 12/09/2012
Ext.P4:- Acknowledgment card
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
M.Praveen Kumar: Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
