Kerala

Kannur

CC/188/2020

Shivadasan.T.P - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor,Tyre Club - Opp.Party(s)

31 Dec 2020

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KANNUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/188/2020
( Date of Filing : 15 Sep 2020 )
 
1. Shivadasan.T.P
C/o Sajeevan,Sreesivam,Maramil Road,Eachur.P.O,Kannur-670591.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Proprietor,Tyre Club
Maruthunkuzhikachani Road,Opposite Federal Bank,Kanjirampara,Thiruvanamthapuram-695030.
2. Sri.Sumesh Soman
C/o Proprietor,Tyre Club,Maruthunkuzhikachani Road,Opposite Federal Bank,Kanjirampara,Thiruvanamthapuram-695030.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. RAVI SUSHA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Moly Kutty Mathew MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Sajeesh. K.P MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 31 Dec 2020
Final Order / Judgement

SRI. SAJEESH.K.P       : MEMBER

    The  Complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction against the  OPs  to refund the purchase price of two tyres and  prays cost and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

    The complainant in brief  is that the  complainant  had purchased   two tyres on 23rd July 2020 viz inforser CF600, steel radial tubeless ISI standard IS 15633 from  1st OP, which was distributed  by 2nd OP to 1st OP.  The complainant had replaced 2 tyres of his vehicle on the advice of 1st OP, that he want to travel to  Kannur  from Thiruvananthapuram.  On 24th July  complainant set off his travel from Thiruvanathapuram and on the way the newly fitted tyre busted and fortunately complainant controlled his vehicle and he continued his journey with  spare tyre.  On the  perusal of tyres from a service  centre complainant came to know that the newly replaced tyre  bulged approximately 1.5inch towards outside and the  other tyre which  he was purchased 8 months  age from  1st OP  was also defective.   Photographs of said tyre were sent to 1st OP and 1st OP told that breaking of tyres will not come under warranty, he cannot replace  it.  The complainant contacted 2nd OP and he also rejected his request.  The complainant suffered deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

  After filing the complaint of complainant , the  commission was issued  notice to both  Ops.  Notice was duly served .  But the Ops have not  appeared before the commission and not  filed any version.   Hence the Commission proceed against the  both opposite parties as  exparte.

         Even though the opposite parties remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the  opposite parties.  Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.   Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with document marking them Ext.A1 cash memo& MO1 series (2 tyres) produced.  The opposite parties remain absent in this case.  At the end the Commission heard the case on merits.

      On the perusal of  documents produced by the complainant ie Ext.A1 which is the cash memo dtd.27/4/2020 issued from the showroom of 1st OP on the purchase of  tyres indicates that  1st OP is liable  for the defects of the said tyre if it caused under the warranty period.  According to  complainant the tyre was bulged outwards and he sent pictures  of the tyre to 1st OP as he demanded to see it.  After that 1st OP neglected to provide service to complainant as the manufacturer  contended that the  breaking of tyre will not cover under the  benefit.  Moreover the complainant produced  the MO1 (2 tyres) articles  before the commission.  Under this circumstances we are of the considered view that the Ops are liable to refund the amount of Rs.6950/- to the complainant.  Eventhough the notice to Ops were properly  sent they never  appeared or  filed any version before the commission to disprove the  contentions raised by the complainant  through  his affidavit as well as  complaint .  Hence the commission came  into a conclusion that  Ops are jointly and severally  liable to  the damage caused to complainant and  there is deficiency in service.  It will need the ends of justice.   Hence the complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly we proceed  to pass the following .

    In the result the complaint  of the complainant is allowed in part:

1. The  opposite parties are jointly and severally  directed to refund  Rs.6950/- ie the  cost of two tyres,  

2.  The  opposite parties are jointly and severally  directed to   pay Rs.2000/- as compensation cum cost of litigation.                                                             

  This order is to be  compiled by the opposite parties  within  30 days from the date of  receipt  of this order,   failing which the   complainant shall be  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019. On payment of the above said amount to the complainant the Ops are at liberty to  collect MO1- articles(2 tyres) from the commission.

Ext.A1-27/4/2020- cash memo

MO1- two tyres

Sd/                                                        Sd/                                                Sd/

PRESIDENT                                        MEMBER                                        MEMBER

                                                                   /Forwarded by Order/

 

 

                                                              SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. RAVI SUSHA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Moly Kutty Mathew]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sajeesh. K.P]
MEMBER
 

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.