Kerala

Kollam

CC/07/69

Radhakrishna Pillai / Unni - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, New Bharat Tyres - Opp.Party(s)

C.Sajeendra Kumar

30 Oct 2008

ORDER


C.D.R.F. KOLLAM : CIVIL STATION - 691013
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::: KOLLAM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/69

Radhakrishna Pillai / Unni
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Proprietor, New Bharat Tyres
The Manager, Good Year Tyres India Pvt. Ltd.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN : President 2. RAVI SUSHA : Member 3. VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER, The complaint is filed to get an award of Rs.25,000/- for damages and physical agonies with an interest and other reliefs. The grievance of the complainant can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant purchased a pair of Tyre including tubes from the shop owned by the 1st opposite party on 09/04/2005. The articles were brand named by Good year company. The 1st opposite party made to believe complainant that the purchased articles were of good quality and having guarantee. After a little period of usage tread of tyres started to develop cracks, subsequently got pierced and peeled off resulted in blasting while usage. The complainant approached 1st opposite party for rectifying the defects. But they reprehended the complainant. At last the 1st opposite party was compelled to take back the defective articles on 24/10/06 and issued a voucher. But no actions were taken by the 1st opposite party to rectify or to replace the damaged articles. The Complainant send a legal notice but it was not responded. Hence the complainant filed the complaint for relief. Even though sufficient opportunities were given, the opposite parties have not filed version or adduced any evidence. Complainant filed affidavit. Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 2) Compensation and cost. Points (I) and (II) On perusal of the complaint, affidavit and exhibits P1 to P5 we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The point found accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the 24th October till the date of payment and Rs.1,500/- as cost. The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 30th October, 2008 INDEX List of witness for the complainant PW1 : Radhakrishna Pillai Ext. P1: Cash bill of New Bharath Tyre Ext. P2: Receipt of old Tyre dated 24.10.06 Ext. P3: Advocate Notice Ext. P4: Postal receipt Ext.P5 : Acknowledgement Card




......................K. VIJAYAKUMARAN : President
......................RAVI SUSHA : Member
......................VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member