Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.594/2013
JUDGMENT DATED 23/06/2015
(Appeal filed against the order in CC No.71/2004 on the file of CDRF, Kollam dated, 31/07/2013)
PRESENT:
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Ajayan, S/o. Sidhan, Bungalavil Veedu,
Perumpuzha P.O., Kundara, Kollam District.
(By Adv: Dinesh Sajan)
Vs
RESPONDENTS:
- The Managing Director,
M/s. CEAT Ltd., Company,
Regd. Office 463, Dr. Annie Besant Road,
Mumbai-400 025.
(By R1 Adv: Ushas)
2. Mr. K.J. Abraham, Regional Manager,
M.s.CEAT Ltd. Company, M.G. Road,
Cochin-682 016.
- M/s. J.S.M. Tyres, Authorised Dealer,
Kallumzhatham, Kilikolloor P.O.,
Kollam District.
(By Advs: K. Dharmajan & S. Navajoth)
JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
Appellant is the complainant in O.P(Q)71/2004 on the file of CDRF, Kollam who preferred this appeal.
2. In brief, complainant purchased two tyres for Rs.20,050/- on 9/7/2002 from the 3rd opposite party who is the authorized dealer of 1st and 2nd opposite party. The tyres were used in a JCB belonging to his mother. The complainant was an un-employed youth and used the JCB for self-employment purpose. The complainant generated Rs.2000/- per day out of the JCB operation and an amount of Rs.23,150/- was remitting towards the KFC loan taken for the purchase of the vehicle in his mother’s name. The allegation of the complainant is that the tyres could be used for hardly one year and two months and got burst due to defective edges and air bulging between the plights in different parts. It is alleged in the complaint that the defect occurred due to manufacturing defect of the tyres and returned the defective tyres to the 3rd opposite party on 15/9/2003. The 3rd opposite party never heeded to the request of the complainant and filed this complaint against the opposite parties for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant claimed Rs.1,30,050/-.
3. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed version contenting that the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and complaint is to be dismissed in-limine. The complainant is not authorized to file the present complaint. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties have only principal to principal relation with the dealers. It is contended that the Territory Manager recommended replacement offer of new tyre for Rs.1561/- + taxes taking into consideration of the actual use of the tyre for over one year. Moreover the 3rd opposite party, the dealer, is in possession of the tyre and the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation and cost claimed by the complainant. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and these opposite parties after the sale of tyres. The tyres were used exclusively in JCB for more than one year and if at all there has any allegation regarding manufacturing defect it should be proved on expert opinion. It was revealed on examination that the tyres failed due to ‘Rim digging’ which is not a manufacturing defect. Hence no liability can be fastened upon the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
4. The contention raised by the 3rd opposite party is that the JCB is owned by the complainant’s mother, Smt. Geetha Bai and JCB has been used as public carriage for commercial purpose. Neither the complainant nor his mother is a consumer as defined in Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is admitted that the complainant purchased 2 tyres on 9/7/2002. It is also admitted that the 3rd opposite party is one of the authorized dealers of the 1st opposite party. On inspection it was found that the failure of tyres was due to Rim digging which is not a manufacturing de
