BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.48/2014

Dated this the 12^th day of May 2015.

A. Uthiravelu, S/o.Amirthalingam

No.3/112, Mettu Street, Edayanchavadi

Irrumbai, Aurovile Post, Vanur Tk.,

Villupuram District-605 101                                                         ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. The Proprietor

    M/s.Shivaji Tyres & Alignment Centre,

    100 Feet Main Road, Sunder Raja Nagar,

    Puducherry-605 004.

2. The Manager

    JK Tyre & Industries Ltd.,

    A-88, PIPDIC Industrial Estate,

    Mettupalayam, Puducherry-605 009.

3. The General Manager (Sales & Marketing)

    JK Tyre & Industries Ltd.,

    No.7, Council House Street,

    Kolkata-700 001.                         .                                              ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT                      :  Tvl.T.Gunasegaran and

                                                                       S.Ganesh Gnanasambanthan,  Advocates.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:          :  Exparte

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to:

1. Direct the opposite parties jointly to replace a new tyre in the place of old one.
2. Direct the opposite parties jointly to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- towards damages and compensation, mental agony, deficiency in service, monetary loss and loss of income to the complainants.
3. Direct to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.
4. Grant such other reliefs as this Forum may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant had purchased a JK Tyre, model JK 195/80 R-15 BRUTE and JK tube 195/80R15 for Rs.5300/- including VAT from the first opposite party.  When the complainant was driving his Mahindra Maxi vehicle the tyre busted and the vehicle went zig zak and it was stopped with great difficulty near Subbiah nagar, Pondicherry on Pondicherry-Tindivanam Road. On 29.06.2012 the complainant went to the first opposite party's office and asked for replacement. After enquiry about the nature of substance loaded, the first opposite party asked the complainant to hand over the tyre and assure to give replacement.   The complainant had handed over the defective tyre and tube with the dealer and had obtained a receipt No.CHN/41925 dated 29.06.2012.  He kept on following the issue personally and over phone with dealer as well with Mr.Melbin T.Varghese  On 07.09.2012 , the complainant received a letter dated 05.09.2012 from the dealer M/s.Sri Amritam Tyres which was sent by JK Tyre & Industries Ltd., at Mettupalayam stating that the claim could not be entertained as the tyre is not a defective one.   The complainant had collected the defective tyre and tube from the dealer on 31.01.2013  The tyre and tube had busted only because of the manufacturing defect since it had busted on 27.06.2012 within 6 days from the date of purchase.  The complainant was constrained to arrange a loan of Rs.4000/- on interest to buy a retreated tyre and new tube on 09.06.2012 to run his vehicle.   There is an inordinate delay of more than 7 months to reject the claim of the complainant.  The complainant had sustained huge loss due to the acts and misdeeds of the opposite party. The complainants also sustained mental agony and suffering due to act and attitudes of the opposite parties towards them.   The complainant was constrained to issue a lawyer notice dated 12.02.2013 to the opposite parties.  On receipt of notice, the first opposite party had issued a vexatious reply dated 06.08.2013.  Hence this complaint

3.         The opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte.

4.         On the side of the complainant, he has chosen to examine himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C9 and MO.1(Tyre and tube).

5.         Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the opposite party attributed deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.  Point No.1:

            The complainant has purchased a tyre and tube from the first opposite party on 21.06.2012 for valid consideration of RS.5300/- vide Ex.C1. The second and third opposite parties are the manufacturer.  Hence the complainant is consumer for the opposite parties.

7.         Point No.2:

            We have perused the pleads, Exs.C1 to C9, MO.1, the evidence adduced by the complainant.  The opposite parties were duly served, called absent and set exparte.  From the available records it is clear that the complainant has purchased one tyre and tube on 21.06.2012 from the first opposite party being the dealer of the second and third opposite parties, the manufacturer of the same.  The averment of the complainant is that within 6 days i.e. on 27.06.2012, when he was driving his Mahindra Maxi vehicle the said tyre and tube was busted.  The complainant submitted that on 29.06.2012 he approached the first opposite party and demanded for replacement of the tyre and tube being covered under warranty and relied upon Ex.C2, the claim forwarding docket. The first opposite party has sent Ex.C3 dated 05.09.2012 the rejection letter to the complainant on 07.09.2012 stating that the failure is not due to manufacturing defect.  The complainant sent legal notice Ex.C4 dated 12.02.2013 to the opposite parties.  The Ex.C5 is the postal receipt.  Ex.C6 is the returned cover, Ex.C7 is the acknowledgement card of the third opposite party and Ex.C8 is the reply of the third opposite party.  The third opposite party in their letter/ Ex.C8 dated 07.03.2013 replied that the damage caused is not due to deficiency in design, manufacturing, material or workmanship.  The complainant submitted that due to the burst of the tyre and tube and to operate his Maxi vehicle, he purchased a retreated tyre and new tube on 09.07.2012 for Rs,3000/- vide Ex.C9 for his livelihood.

8.         From the above facts it is clear that the tyre and tube supplied by the opposite parties burst within 6 days during the warranty period.  The above fact is clearly proved by the complainant through his exhibits and evidence.  The reason adduced by the third opposite party in their letter filed by the complainant is not supported by any tangible evidence.  More over the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence before this Forum to rebut the claim of the complainant.  It is evident from the records that within 6 days the tyre and tube busted and the complainant suffered loss and injuries and spent for the retreated tyre and tube for his livelihood.  The rejection of the claim made by the complainant is unjustifiable one.  The opposite parties have caused undue delay in rejecting the claim.  Therefore, the opposite parties have attributed the deficiency in service and Unfair trade practice.  The complainant proved his case.  Hence the opposite parties are liable for the same and the complainant is entitled for the relief.

9.         Point No.3:

            In view of the decision taken in point no.2, this complaint is hereby allowed.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to:

1. Return the cost of the tyre and tube of Rs.5300/- paid by the complainant.
2. Pay a sum of Rs.7000/- as compensation to the complainant.
3. Pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.
4. The Opposite parties are entitled to receive the MOs after compliance of this order.

Dated this the 12^th day of May 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS WITNESS:  

CW.1              15.04.2015                A. Uthiravelu

OPPOSITE PARTYS WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTYS EXHIBITS: Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:

MO.1              Tyre & Tube.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER