KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.445/01

JUDGMENT DATED 04.02.2008

(Appeal filed against the order passed by the CDRF, Kollam in O.P.NO.443/98)

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SMT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER

Biju,

Proprietor, Devi Travels.

Manoj Mandiram, Kannimel D-Ward, : APPELLANT

Kilikollur, Kollam

(By Adv.Cherunniyoor P.Sasidharan Nair)

Vs

The Proprietor,

M/s. Keetag Tyre Crafts, : RESPONDENT

S.N.College Junction, Kollam.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT

The appellant is the complainant in O.P.443/98 in the file of CDRF, Kollam which was dismissed.
 

It is the case of the complainant that he entrusted with the respondent 3 tyres of Maruti van on different days for retreading. The above tyres when used within a short period was found to be defective. The flaps were loosened and due to the above air was formed between the drum and the tyre and the bearings got damaged. The damages claimed are Rs.75000/- in which Rs.5000/- towards his loss of earnings and Rs.20000/- for repair and the fresh installation of tyres and Rs.50000/- towards pain and damages.

The respondent/opposite party has contended that the appellant is yet to give him the balance of retreading charges. The complainant and his employees manhandled his sales representative; and the complainant has filed a complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Kollam. The present proceeding has been initiated by the complainant as a measure of repraisal. According to the opposite party the complainant is made use of the tyres for the maximum period possible. It is point out that it is after one year that the complaint has been filed. It is further mentioned that for various reasons the loosening of the flap of the tyres can occur like the continuous running of the vehicle without rest, in worst road conditions; mechanical complaint of the vehicle etc. It is also mentioned that the opposite party is employing procured cold process making use of best materials.

Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 to 3, Exts.P1 to P5. Ext.C1 DW1, and Exts.D1 to D5.

It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that the Forum has just relied on out of context the statement of PW2 the expert that he is not an expert as to the reason for mechanical defects to the vehicle. We find that the expert Commissioner has only mentioned that he is not expert on the mechanical side and that he cannot say whether it is on account of the tread loosening that caused mechanical defect of the vehicle if any. We find that the Commissioner is a Director at T & TC wing of Rubber Board, Kottayam. He has examined the 3 tyres and has observed:- It has been seen that tread had got loosened from all the three tyres. Had proper care been exerted at each stage of retreading by the retreading unit namely, buffing, application of bonding solution, drying of the bonding solution, time and temperature of curing, providing adequate air pressure and use of good quality retreading materials, tread loosening could have been avoided. It is also mentioned that under ideal conditions the tyre can be retreaded 5 to 6 times and that in the present situation the tyres can be retreaded 4 to 5 times only. In the circumstances we find that in view of the un impeached version of PW2 the Commissioner and Ext.C1 report that the defects alleged in the retread tyres stands proved.

With respect to the case of the complainant that the bearings of the vehicle got damaged and the bearings had to be replaced and that he had to incur considerable expense in this regard is not supported by any evidence. The only evidence is the oral testimony of PW1, the complainant and that of PW3 the mechanic who has support the version of PW1. The vehicle was not subjected to any examination by an expert. We find that the case of the complainant that it was on account of the use of defective tyres that vehicle got damage stands not proved.

The evidence of DW1 the proprietor of the respondent can not be accepted as such in view of the version of PW2 the expert Commissioner. In the circumstances we find that the complainant is entitled for compensation for the defective retread tyres supplied to him by the opposite party, A sum of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable towards damages in the instant case.

In the circumstances the decision of the Forum is set aside. The opposite party/respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant with interest at 12% from the date of filing of the complaint.

The complainant/appellant will also be entitled for costs of Rs.2000/-. The amounts are to be paid within one month of the receipt of copy of this judgment failing which the amounts of Rs.10000/- carry 18% interest from the due date.

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT

SMT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN, MEMBER

R.AV