- ::: O R D E R ::: -

1. The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opponents for the direction to repay the amount of Rs.3,800/- along with damages of Rs.15,000/- for having sold a defective tyre and for court costs as detailed in the complaint.


2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:-
The complainant has purchased a tyre and tube from the 1st opponent by paying Rs.3,800/- on 17.05.2008 and the same were fixed to his vehicle. When he was plying his vehicle, the said tyre was blasted. Immediately, he removed the tyre and tube and handed over to the 1st opponent as there was a manufacturing defect. After the receipt of the said tyre, 1st opponent sent the same to the 2nd opponent on 15.10.2008 through complaint docket No.250. But the 2nd opponent instead of replacement had sent a rejection letter stating that there is no manufacturing defect. Thus, the 1st and 2nd opponents have sold a defective tyre to the complainant. But at the time of receipt of the tyre, 1st opponent assured to replace the tyre and tube. But the 1st opponent failed to do so and dragging the time by saying one or the other reason. Therefore, the complainant suffered mental torture and he stopped running his vehicle due to the defect found in the tyre. Hence, he prays for the above referred reliefs.


3. After the service of the notice, the 1st opponent appeared through their counsel and filed version. The 2nd opponent is placed exparte.


4. The 1st opponent in his version has contended that he has no knowledge that the tyre was blasted at the time when he was travelling. After receipt of the tyre and tube from the complainant, they sent the same to the 2nd opponent through docket No.250 and the 2nd opponent after check up has sent a rejection letter for replacement as there was no any manufacturing defect. The complainant knowing these facts fully well has falsely alleged that they have assured to replace the tyre with new one. He being a dealer of 2nd opponent rendered prompt service to the complainant by sending a tyre and tube given by the complainant and he has completely, promptly and responsibly given the service to the complainant. But the 2nd opponent being a manufacturer of the tyre has rejected to replace the tyre and tube through letter dtd.04.11.2008. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of him and there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre sold by them. Thus, he is not liable to replace the tyre or refund the amount of the tyre. Hence, prays for the dismissal of the complaint filed against him.


5. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence as PW.1 along with documents and the same have been marked as Exs.P1 to P3.


6. The 1st and 2nd opponents have not chosen to file affidavit or to produce the documents.


7. Heard the arguments.


8. Now, the points that arise for consideration of this Forum are as follows:-

i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of
the opponents?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the
reliefs as sought?
iii) What Order?


9. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

i) Point No.1: In the Affirmative

ii) Point No.2: In the Affirmative

iii) Point No.3: See, as per order below

- ::: R E A S O N S ::: -


10. Point No.1 & 2: There is no dispute with respect to the delivery of the blasted tyre and tube to the 1st opponent by the complainant. The only dispute raised by the 1st opponent is that since there was no manufacturing defect, they cannot replace the tyre. In this regard, the 2nd opponent also sent a rejection letter stating that there is no manufacturing defect. The said rejection letter is produced by the complainant and the same is marked as Ex.P3. The complainant has also produced a cash paid receipt towards the purchase of the tyre for Rs.3,800/-, which is marked as Ex.P1 and also produced complaint docket issued by the 1st opponent at the time of receipt of the blasted tyre and the same is marked as Ex.P2. On perusal of the Ex.P2 (complaint docket), we noticed that it is mentioned as “SIDEWALL AIR BURST” in the column of Description of Complaint. Hence, it is clear that the tyre purchased in the month of May 2008 was caused blasted in the month of October 2008 that means to say after the four months of purchase of the tyre, it sustained Sidewall Air Burst. This clearly goes to show that there is a manufacturing defect.


11. On the otherhand, 2nd opponent being a manufacturer of the said tyre has not appeared before this Forum and explained exact reason for the said burst and it is pertinent to note that in the rejection letter i.e., Ex.P3, the 2nd opponent has mentioned Probable causes of Failure are “PENETRATION OF SHARP OBJECT AT SIDEWALL”. But the 2nd opponent has not given the clear picture and exact reason for the burst of the tyre. As such, without giving exact reason of the burst, they cannot reject for the replacement of the tyre and the complainant has established that the 1st and 2nd opponents have sold a defective tyre to him. As such, the complainant is entitled for the replacement of the tyre and tube from the 1st and 2nd opponents and if they failed to do so, he is entitled for the refund of the amount of Rs.3,800/-. The complainant is also entitled to receive Rs.2,000/- towards unfair trade practice for having sold the defective tyre by 1st and 2nd opponents along with costs of Rs.1,000/- towards the litigation expenses. Under these circumstance, we answer these point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative.


12. Point No.3: In view of our findings on the above points the complaint filed by the complainant has to be allowed. In the result we pass the following order.


- :::O R D E R::: -


1. The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
2. The opponent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the tyre and tube in question with a new one or to refund of Rs.3,800/- i.e., the value of the said tyre and tube to the complainant.
3. The opponent Nos.1 and 2 are also jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the unfair trade practice and costs of Rs.1,000/- towards the litigation expenses to the complainant, within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of default till realisation.
4. Send the copies of this order to the parties.