BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Tuesday the 19th day of December, 2006
C.C. No.41/2006
Y.Chennakesava Reddy, S/o. Late. H. Palakshi Reddy, Aged 30 years, Hindu,
R/o. Pedda Harivanam (V), Adoni (M), Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director, M/s. CEAT LIMITED,
6-1-79, Lakadika Pool,Hyderabad.
2. The Proprietor, M/s. Ashoka Automobiles,
15-6-64, Afzal Gunj, Hyderabad.
3. The Propriector, M/s. Sree Raghavendra Agencies,Dealers in Tyres Lubicants and Charcoal,
R/o. 18/641/5, M.M. Road, Adoni, Kurnool Dist. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. A.Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri. P.Sreenivasulu Advocate, Kurnool for opposite Party No.1, Sri.P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool, for opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.2 called absent set exparte, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Smt. C. Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 12, of C.P. Act, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to replace the tyre of tractor bearing No.16-9-28 or to return the value of the tyre, Rs.30,000/- as compensation for disuse of tractor, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, cost of the complaint along with interest at 24% per annum on the value of the reliefs.
2. The brief facts of complainant’s case is that the complainant is an agriculturist and purchased two rare wheel tyres for his tractor bearing No.16-9-28 by paying Rs.23,000/- vide credit bill bearing No.10524 dt:22-06-05 from opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.3. The said tyres were delivered to the complainant at Adoni from the godown of opposite party No.3. The said tyres were fitted to the tractor and put to use, within a month the said tyres developed crack in the tyre button and immediately the complainant on 09-07-05 intimated the same to opposite parties 1 and 2 and requested to send their representative for inspection of said tyres. The opposite party No.2 informed opposite party No.3 to send the defect tyre +to Sri.V.Sriram, 140/20-A, Medam Compound, Park Road Kurnool, who is a customer service centre of opposite party No.1 and accordingly the complainant sent the said defect tyre to V.Sriram. The said Sriram sent a letter dt:24-08-05 stating that the failure is not due to any manufacturing defect and the cause of failure is S.W. cut and returned the tyre to opposite party No.3 and said tyre is with opposite party No.3. The findings of the employee of opposite party No.1 is not correct as it is not scientific and the said cause is only to escape the replacement of the tyre. The place where the tractor plied was not rocky or hill area, the said tractor was used only for agriculture purpose and there is no chance for S.W. cut. Since the tyre was having manufacturing defect, it developed crack within a month of its use. Hence, the opposite parties have supplied defective and sub-standard tyre and they are liable to replace the said defect tyre with new tyre and also liable to pay compensation. Hence, resorted to the forum for redressal.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents viz., (1) credit bill No.10524 dt: 22-06-05, issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant as to the purchase of two tyres for Rs.23,000/- (2) office copy of letter dt:24-06-05 of complainant addressed to opposite party No.2 enclosing a pay order for Rs.23,000/- (3)office copy of telegram dt:09-07-05 issued by complainant to opposite parties 1 and 2 (4) letter dt:24-08-05 of opposite party No.l addressed to opposite party No.3 (5)consignment bill dt:27-08-05 (6)office copy of legal notice dt:12-09-05 addressed to opposite parties No.1,2, and 3 and (7) reply of opposite party No.1 dt:21-09-05 to Ex.A6, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complainant averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A7, for its appreciation in the case.
The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite parties 1 and 3 and suitablely reply to the interrogatories caused by opposite parties 1 and 3.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties 1 and 3 appeared through their standing counsels and filed their separate written versions. The opposite party No.2 remained exparte throughout the case proceedings.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 submits that it sells its products to its authorized dealers on a principal to principal basis. The defect in the tyre of the complainant was examined by this opposite party’s technical service engineer who is trained in the field and qualified to inspect tyres for manufacturing defect and accordingly gives finding report whether manufacturing defect is there or not. The said technical service engineer inspected and found that there are no manufacturing defects in the complainant’s tyre. Hence, the complainant’s claim for replacement of tyre was rejected. The technical service engineer described the failure due to S.W. cut (side wall cut) which is a technical terminology used in tyre trade to describe any failure arising on account of over inflated tyre hitting with force a sharp external object causing cuts, holes and damage to the tyres. The above finding report was communicated to the complainant by the opposite parties through letter dt: 24-08-05. It further submits that if the findings of technical service engineer is not conclusive, the complainant may invoke the procedure laid down U/S. 13(i)(c to g) of C.P. Act, for arriving to a fair of just decision. The complainant in this case claimed Rs.23,000/- as replacement of tractor tyre. But a single tyre cost is only Rs.11,500/- and lastly denies that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre of the complainant and the said defects were caused on account of over inflated tyre riding over sharp external objects. Hence, there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. The written version of opposite party No.3 denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts and submits that the complainant used the said tractor for commercial purpose. It also submits that the opposite party No.3 doesn’t market the tyres of opposite party No.1 and 2, as opposite party No.3 is a close friend of the complainant and on the request of complainant opposite party No.3 delivered the said tyres through the godown and no sale consideration was received by opposite party No.3 from the complainant and there is no consumer relation ship between complainant and opposite party No.3. Therefore, the complainant is not maintainable and opposite party No.3 is added only for the purpose of jurisdiction for filling this case and no case is made out against opposite party No.3 and seeks for the dismissal of complainant with costs.
7. The opposite parties in support of their case relied on (1) industry guide to tyre failures due to service act abuses -1986 and (2) xerox copy of letter dt:24-08-02 addressed by opposite party No.1 and 2 (Ex.A4), besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and 3 in reiteration of their written versions and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 and B2 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite parties 1 and 3 caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:?
9. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased two tractor tyres on 22-06-05 from opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.3 by paying Rs.23,000/- vide Ex.A1. The complainant alleges that within one month of purchase tyre developed crack because of manufacturing defect and immediately informed opposite parties No.1 and 2 vide Ex.A3. The Ex.A3 is the telegram dt:09-07-05 of complainant stating that crack in tyre button developed and requests the opposite parties 1 and 2 to send their representative for inspection. Thereafter, on intimation by opposite party No.3 the complainant sent the defect tyre to the territory customer service centre, Kurnool, the said centre replied vide Ex.A4 dt:24-08-05 stating that the tyre of the complainant has been carefully examined and it is noted that the failure is not due to any manufacturing defects but because of failure in S.W cut and they are not in a position to grant any allowances and the said observations were intimated to the complainant. The complainant did not rebut the said observations by placing any contra material nor there by placing any material on record that the said defects in the said tyre aroused due to manufacturing defects only nor the complainant placed the said defect tyre before the forum for examination. Hence, there appears every bonafidies of the opposite parties in their hesitation that there are no manufacturing defects in the tyre of the complainant.
10. The sum up, it is clear that the complainant failed to establish that the said defects in the tyre are due to manufacturing defects only and there is no credible evidence led by the complainant to show that the tyre supplied to him have developed manufacturing defects and in the absence of any expert evidence to support the contentions of the complainant it cannot be held that the tyre of the complainant suffered from any manufacturing defects. Therefore, the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the reliefs claimed, in the complaint.
11. In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 19th ay of December, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Credit bill No.10524, Dt:22-06-2005 issued by opposite party No.2 to
complainant.
Ex.A2 Office copy of letter, Dt:24-06-05 addressed to opposite party No.2 by
complainant as to enclosing of pay order for Rs.23,000/-.
Ex.A3 Office copy of Telegram Dt:09-07-2005 issued to opposite party No.1
and 2 by complainant.
Ex.A4 letter, dt:24-08-2005 addressed by opposite party No.1 to opposite
party No.3 and another.
Ex.A5 Consignment bill, dt:27-08-05 (value of goods 300).
Ex.A6 Office copy of legal notice, dt:12-09-2005 addressed to opposite party
No.1 to opposite party No.3 and another.
Ex.A7 Reply of opposite party No.1 dt:21-09-2005 to Ex.A6.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Industry guide to Tyre Failures due to service abuses – 1986.
Ex.B2 Xerox copy of letter, dt: 24-08-2005 addressed by opposite party No.1
to opposite party No.3 and another (Ex.A4).
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.A. Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri P. Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
4. The Proprietor, M/s. Ashoka Automobiles, 15-6-64, Afzal Gunj, Hyderabad.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
