Sri. George Baby (President):

                        The complainant has filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite parties.

                    2. The case of the complainant is as follows:  the complainant is conducting a shop under the name “Jamia Rubber Traders” and the said establishment is doing the business procurement and scale of rubber scrap.  The complainant has purchased a Mahindra Pick up Van on 30/03/2018 from the 1^stopposite party who is the authorized dealer and service agent of the vehicles manufactured by Mahindra Company.  The complainant’s vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 03 AC 4176 and he had availed a lone of Rs.7,50,000/- from Federal Bank, Konni Branch for the purchase of the vehicle.  The complainant and as well as his family’s only source of income for their livelihood is the earnings from the above noted rubber scrap business.  The complainant is liable to pay Rs.13,500/- as EMI of above said loan.  On 18/09/2018 one of the tyre of the complainant vehicle damaged while he was going to collect rubber scrap and the matter was intimated to the 1^stopposite party.  Then the 1^stopposite party given by the letter to the complainant and the said letter was addressed to the 2^ndopposite party who is the dealer of tyres in Kottayam District according to the complainant.  That the complainant approachedthe 2^ndopposite party so many times for redressing his grievances in the particular incident.  But the 2^ndopposite party had not acted positivelyand the 2^ndopposite party further stated that the 1^st opposite party is responsible for replacement of tyre.  Both the opposite parties made accusation to each other and not given any relief to the complainant till this time.  The above said act of the opposite parties are grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence, unfair trade practice.  The complainant is now plying the vehicle withoutstepney.  Hence the complaint for direction to the replacement of defective tyre or on failure to the same for realising the amount of Rs.8,000/- as its value from the opposite parties along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of the proceedings. 

                   3. The Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance.  Thought the opposite parties received the notice they did not appear before this Forum and hence the opposite parties declare ex parte on 28/05/2019. 

                   4. In this case we have to consider the following issues:-

     1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

     2. Whether the opposite party had committed any deficiency in   

         service against the complainant? 

     3. Regarding the relief and cost? 

                   5. In order to prove the case of the complainant the complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he is examined as PW1 at the time of his chief examination.  Exhibit A1 is the letter issued by the first opposite party in favour of the complainant.  Exhibit A2 is the copy of certificate of registration pertaing to the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 03 AC 4176.  After the closure evidence we heard the complainant.

                   4. Point No. 1&2:- For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.1&2 together.  According to the complainant the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 03 AC 4176 owned by the complainant and the said vehicle was purchased by availing the financial assistance of the Federal Bank Ltd., Konni Branch and the said vehicle was purchased from the 1^stopposite party.  The complainant all such contentions are proved though Exhibit A2.  The complainant’s case is thatone of the tyre of the above said vehicle completely damaged while he was plying the vehicle and the matter was reported to the first opposite party who is the authorized dealer and service agent of the vehicles manufactured by Mahindra Company.  The 1^stopposite party then given a letter to the complainant which was addressed to the 2^ndopposite party is liable for replacement of the tyre.  The said letter is marked on Exhibit A1.  The complainant approached the 2^ndopposite party withA1 then they were not ready to redress the grievances of the complainant instead of the 2^ndopined that the 1^stopposite party is responsible for the replacement of the tyre.  The opposite parties made accusations each other.  They are not rectified the defects of the tyre till this time.  The opposite parties above said Act caused much mental agony to the complainant.  When we go through the Exhibit A1 it is found that the defect of the tyre is mentioned as “Cract on site wall” from Exhibit A1 it is clear that the reported date of the said matter is on 18/09/2018.  Exhibit A1 is issued by first opposite party and the same is addressed to 2^ndopposite party.  From the perusal of Exhibit A1 it is understood that the complainant’s contention that one of the tyre become defective is correct.  The complainant’s specific case is that the opposite parties were not even take care to rectify the defects of the tyre or the same amounts givento the complainant.  It is the gross negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties.  The complainant all such contentions remained unchallengeable when we evaluate the evidence before us, it is to say that the complainant has proved his case successfully an as per the available evidence before us we can see that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to repay the said amount or rectify the type the complainant.  Hence the complaint is allowable.  Point No. 1&2 are found in favour of the complainant.   

                    9. In the result for the ends of Justice we pass the following order.

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/-     

    (Rupees Eight Thousand Only) as the price of the defective tyre to

the complainant with 10% interest from the date of this order.

2. The opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) for deficiency in service

committed by them and a cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two

Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the complainant.

     Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 06^thday of November, 2019.

(Sd/-)

                                                                                       George Baby,

                                                                                         (President)

Smt. N. ShajithaBeevi (Member-I)   :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1: A.M.Sainudeen.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1:  letter issued by the 1^st opposite party in favour of the complainant. 

A2:  copy of certificate of registration pertaining to the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 03 AC 4176.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

       Copy to:-

                  1. A.M.Sainudeen,

Aniyaveedu, Iravon.P.O., Konni, Pathanamthitta.                         2. The Sales Manager,

                                 TVS & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Door No.IX/244L,

                                 Near Royal Fuels, Pallippadi Jn., Mylapra.

                             (Set Ex parte on 28/05/2019 )

                            3.The Manager/Proprietor,

                               J.K.Tyres, Kumali, Eerayin Kadavu, Kottayam – 686002. 

(Set Ex parte on 28/05/2019 )

                           4. The Stock File.