PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

Monday, 28^th June 2010

 

D. Venkaa subbaiah, S/o d. Venkataiah, Hindu,

aged 40 years, Busness, Resident of Akula Street,

Siddavatam, Kadapa District.                                                  ….. Complainant.

 

Vs.

Managing Partner, the madhavi Retreaders,

Korrapadu road, Proddatur – 516361,

Kadapa district.                                                                           …..Respondent.   

                                                                                                                                     

 

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 25-5-2010 in the presence of Sri Ajay Kumar Veena, Advocate for complainant and Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

 

 

 

1.                 Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant was maintaining one JCB vehicle by hiring to various customers @ Rs. 600/- per hour. He handed over original tyre i.e. M.R.F Muscle rock size 16.9X28 No. 10963691808 to the respondent on 9-11-2009 for patching up work. On the same day the respondent collected Rs. 3,100/- towards patching up the tyre and issued a cash bill also. It was delivered on 16-11-2009.   On the next day the complainant observed some defects in the tyre due to defective work done by the respondent. The complainant immediately approached and questioned the respondent. The respondent requested the complainant to hand over the tyre to rectify the problem and rehanded over in good working condition.  Again the tyre was handed over on          20-11-2009 and it was delivered on 25-11-2009 saying that the problem was rectified. 15 days later the same problem occurred and it became not usable and therefore, the JCB vehicle was not working causing financial loss of Rs. 35,000/- @ Rs. 3,500/- per day as income. The cost of the tyre was Rs. 15,000/- and the entire loss was due to the negligent act of the respondent.   The respondent did not take necessary precautions and damaged the tyre.  Apart from it the complainant had much mental agony also. On 26-12-2009 the complainant got issued a notice to the respondent for damages of Rs. 50,000/- i.e. Rs. 35,000/- towards loss of income for 10 days @ Rs. 3,500/- per day and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of the tyre and  Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony. The respondent did not give any reply.   The Respondent under took to rectify the defect and hence, the complainant handed over the tyre to the respondent, who inturn issued letter dt. 27-1-2010  giving undertaking to rectify the problem. After a week when the complainant contacted the respondent by phone he was informed that the tyre was failed and it was not useful and it was lying with the respondent.  Therefore, the complaint was filed for Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of the tyre and Rs. 35,000/- towards loss of income and Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and costs.   

3.                The respondent filed a counter denying the complaint and its averments. There was no deficiency or negligence on the part of the respondent. On 9-11-2009 the respondent received a tyre for patching work. At that time the tyre was 15%  re-buttoned and it was manufactured in 2008.  After patching work it was handed over to the complainant. It was not correct that on the next day of delivery the problem arose in tyre due to defective work done by the respondent. Again on              20-11-2009 the complainant approached the respondent to rectify the problem and it was rectified and handed over the tyre to the complainant with free of cost. 20 days later the complainant again informed by phone that there was same problem in the tyre. The respondent requested the complainant to handover the tyre but the respondent received a notice dt. 26-12-2009 with false allegations. After receipt of the notice the respondent sent his auto for two times for receiving of the tyre to avoid inconvenience to the customer i.e. the complainant.   The complainant refused to send the tyre and on 27-1-2010 the complainant handed over the tyre and after rectification with the services of trained person at Delhi. The complainant was informed that there was no defect in the tyre and the tyre was burst on the other side and not on patching work and the tyre was not useful. There was no fault on the part of the respondent. But the complainant filed the present complaint with evil motive. The tyres were in two types (1) used for buses and lorries on road, (2) used for JCB, dumpers off the road. The tyre used by the complainant for his JCB vehicle was to run off the road. There was every chance of burst of tyre in case of using of the tyres on the off road.   After patching work the complainant used tyre for 15 days through his JCB and then the tyre was burst.  The tyre was an old one used for more than one year. The burst in the tyre was not due to defective patching work. It was due to irregular and low maintenance. In the off roads, the life of the tyre would be deteriorated within 6 months. It could be confirmed with any expert opinion. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled for any relief and the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

 

4.                On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

i.                   Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent?

ii.                 Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief’s as prayed for?

iii.              To what relief?

 

5.                On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A5 were marked. No documents were marked and filed on behalf of the respondent.  

 

 

6.                Point No. 1& 2.   The complainant was maintaining one JCB vehicle and was earning Rs. 600/- per hour towards hiring chares. On 9-11-2009 the complainant approached and handed over the tyre of the JCB vehicle i.e. MRF Muscle rock size 16.9X28 No. 109636911808 for the purpose of patching work to the tyre and paid Rs. 3,100/- towards charges to the Respondent.  The respondent issued a cash bill No. 17, dt. 9-11-2009.   The Photostat copy of cash bill was Ex. A1.   After patching work it was delivered on 16-11-2009. But the complainant found some problem in the tyre and observed it was due to defective patching work. He contacted the respondent immediately and handed over the tyre at the request of the respondent to rectify the problem on 20-11-2009. On 25-11-2009 it was delivered to the complainant.   The tyre worked properly for 15 days as per averments of the complaint. 15 days later the complainant found same problem, after patching work done by the respondent. The complainant used the tyre for 15 days without any monetary loss. On 26-12-2009 the complainant got issued a notice to the respondent stating that he sustained a loss of income for 10 days of Rs. 35,000/- @ Rs. 3,500/- per day and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of the tyre and Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony. The Photostat copy of notice was Ex. A4. Ex. A5 was courier receipt. After receipt of the notice the respondent requested the complainant to hand over tyre for rectification of the defect. As such the tyre was handed over to the respondent on 27-1-2010.  The respondent issued a letter on the same day under Ex. A3. The respondent issued the order form to the complainant on 27-1-2010 under Ex. A2. The allegation of the complainant was he sustained a loss due to irresponsible and negligent patching work done by the respondent without proper maintenance and care.   He claimed the loss for 10 days @ Rs. 3,500/- per day and cost of tyre as Rs. 15,000/-. But after patching work on 16-11-2009 the tyre was handed over to the complainant, who used it to his JCB vehicle.   He used the tyre for 15 days from 25-11-2009 to 26-12-2009 without any problem. Therefore, there was no loss of income at all. Regarding cost of tyre Rs. 15,000/- there was no proper proof that the tyre would cost Rs. 15,000/- and in which year it was manufactured and how many patching works done to the tyre after it was purchased. Further the tyre was used for 15 days as discussed earlier. There was no scope to claim the cost of the tyre also. However, the respondent did patching work on 27-1-2010 on free of cost without collecting any charges, as shown in Ex. A2. There was no any evidence for loss of Rs. 3,500/- per day and Rs. 600/- per hour. Therefore, there are no merits in the case and there is no deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the respondent. Hence, the points are answered accordingly. 

7.                Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.  

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 28^th June 2010

 

 

 

 

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    NIL                                                  For Respondent :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -  

 

 

Ex. A1         P/c of cash bill, dt. 9-11-2009 issued by the respondent.

Ex. A2         Order form bill No. 49, dt. 27-1-2010 issued by the respondent.

Ex. A3         Letter from respondent to complainant, dt. 27-1-2010.

Ex. A4         P/c of notice from complainant’s advocate to respondent, dt. 26-12-2009.

Ex. A5         DTDC Courier receipt from complainant’s advocate to respondent.

 

Exhibits marked for Respondent: -            ------ NIL --------

 

1)     Sri Ajaykumar Veena, Advocate, for complainant  

2) Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for respondent.

2) Copy was dispatched on      :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :