Complaint filed on: 9-02-2021
Disposed on: 12-02-2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMKURU
CC.No.14/2021
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY February, 2021
PRESENT
SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER
Complainant: - Sri.Sundaram D.R
S/o Raghunath, A/a 3 years
R/at Doddanaravangala Village,
Bellavi Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk,
Tumkuru District.
(By Sri.Sundararamu D.R L.L.B Advocate)
V/s
Opposite parties :- 1) M/s MICHELIN TYRES
BNGALORE,
Shashank Complex, Sharadha
Sreelal and Co.
No.540, Mysore Road, Opposite
Sub-Registrar office,
Kengeri, Bengaluru-560 060
2) M/s K.Y.Shivanna and Sons
Tyre Dealers in Tumkuru, 1st
Road, 3rd Cross,
New Mandipete,
Tumkuru City.
ORDER ON ADMISSION OF THE COMPLAINT
SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the OPs to deliver new tyre in place of old two wheeler tyre and further order to pay a sum of Rs.10,000=00 towards mental shock and agony with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization.
2. It is the case of complainant that the OP No.1 M/s MICHELIN TYRES BENGALORE is the manufacturer of two wheeler tyre company under the name of style MICHELIN TYRES and OP No.2 is one of the dealers of said tyre at Tumkur. The complainant had purchased one MICHELIN tyre from the OP No.2 on 28-12-2017 by paying consideration amount of Rs.1,900=00. The OP did not issue receipt for selling the said tyre. Within span of six months from the date of purchase the said tyre punctured about six times and mechanic noticed that bubbles are formed in the inner area of the tyre and told that it is defective one.
3. It is further case of complainant that he has approached the OP No.2 and informed with regard to defect in the tyre purchased from him. The OP No.2 has denied for exchange of the said tyre. Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice dated 24-02-2020 calling upon the OPs to exchange the defective tyre and pay the damages sustained by him. The OPs after receipt of notice neither complied nor replied the notice. Hence, this complaint.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant on the point of admission.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the OP No.2 did not issue receipt for purchase of tyre and agreed to exchange defective tyre. The complainant has produced copy of legal notice dated 24-02-2020, postal receipts for having sent notice and postal website internet copy for delivery of legal notice to the OPs on 25-02-2020 and 26-02-2020. The complainant has not produced single document to show that he purchased MICHELIN tyre from the OP No.2 on 28-12-2017 by paying its value of Rs.1,900=00. The complainant has not produced any document to believe that he has made payment of Rs.1,900=00 to the OP No.2 for purchase of MICHELIN tyre. The complainant has not placed any material to show that he being consumer of Op No.1 and 2 by producing receipt or any document to show that he had purchased MICHELIN tyre from the OP No.2 on 28-12-2017 by paying Rs.1,900=00. Office copy of legal notice is not a document to believe that the complainant had purchased tyre from the Op No.2 on 28-12-2017. There is no prima facie material to admit the complaint since the complainant has not produced single document to show the relationship of consumer and service provider. Hence, we proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
The complainant is dismissed as not maintainable.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12th day of February, 2021).
LADY MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
