State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Pushpanjali Motors, Godda vs Manoj Kumar Tyagi And Another on 22 December, 2008
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RANCHI JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI First Appeal no.535 of 2007 Against order dated 05.12.2007, passed by District Disputes Redressal Forum, Godda, in Consumer Complaint no.25 of 2006. M/s Pushpanjali Motors, Godda . Appellant Versus Manoj Kumar Tyagi and another . Respondents For Appellant : Mr.Mukul Prasad, Advocate. For Respondent no.1 : Mr.Sachin Kumar, Advocate. Before Justice Gurusharan Sharma-President Mrs. Kalyani Kar Roy-Member
And Mr. Satyendra Kumar Gupta-Member Judgment Justice Sharma: The complainant purchased three new tyres from M/s Pushpanjali Motors, Godda on 07.5.2005, manufactured by M/s J.K.Tyres Ltd. for Rs.10,200.00, which were said to have been damaged within a fortnight of their use and were, therefore, returned within warranty period.
2. The authorised dealer sent those damaged tyres to the manufacturer on 24.9.2005, who did not find any manufacturing defect therein.
3. The complainant filed Consumer Complaint no.25 of 2006, before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Godda against both the dealer as well as the manufacturer of those tyres, wherein direction has been given to the authorised dealer, the appellant herein to refund price of those tyres, Rs.10,200.00 with interest @ 15% per annum from 05.7.2005 till payment and to pay Rs.1,000.00 as compensation to him.
4. We notice that the manufacturer did not appear either before the District Forum or in the present appeal. Further the authorised dealer simply informed that on being sent to the manufacturer, no manufacturing defect was found in those tyres, but neither such report was produced nor any expert/technical report was brought on record by the opposite party no.1-the appellant herein up till now. Simple denial that there was no manufacturing defect was not enough to reject the complainants claim.
5. The complainant was required to meet the technical report, if any, brought on record, in support of the fact that there was no manufacturing defect in those tyres. District Forum was also required to obtain any technical report, if such denial of manufacturer was brought on record. In absence of the manufacturer it was the liability of the authorised dealer, who was contesting the complaint, to produce such report for examination by the District Forum. It was strange that all the three tyres in question were damaged only within a fortnight of their use.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of materials available on record, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in this appeal. However, we modify the order only to the extent that on compliance of the directions given in the impugned order and making payments to the complainant, the authorised dealer- appellant is at liberty to realise the same from the manufacturer of the tyres-M/s J.K.Tyres Ltd.
7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modification in the impugned order. No cost.
The 22nd December, 2008 Ranchi.
Member Member President