State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Good Year India Limited, vs P.C.Thankachan, on 26 April, 2010
Daily Order
First Appeal No. 315/2006
(Arisen out of order dated in Case No. of District )
1. Year Indsia Ltd and Another
Cochin
....Appellant
Versus
1. Thankachan.P.C
Muvattupuzha
....Respondent
1. Thankachan.P.C Muvattupuzha ....Respondent BEFORE :
HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU , PRESIDENT PRESENT:
None for the Appellant None for the Respondent *JUDGEMENT/ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.315/06 JUDGMENT DATED 26.4.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
1. Good Year India Limited, Convent Road,Ponnurunny, Cochin-19.
2. M/s New Bharat Tyres, -- APPELLANTS Koonamthai, Edappally, Ernakulam.
(By Adv.J.Krishnakumar) Vs. P.C.Thankachan, Peechappillil House, -- RESPONDENT Kavakkadu.P.O. Muvattupuzha.
JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.166/05 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to replace the JCB tyre and also to pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the JCB tyre involved for Rs.11,600/- on 3.12.03 and that it had a warranty for 3 years. On 5.2.05 a bulge on the tyre was noticed. On inspection the first opposite party/manufacturer noted that there is a break inside. They have to replace the tyre.
3. The first opposite party contended that the complainant is using the JCB for commercial purpose and hence the complainant cannot be treated as a Consumer under the C.P.Act. The damage to the tyre has taken place on account of careless user. It happens due to impact by a sharp object or stone. They have denied any manufacturing defect to the tyre.
4. The version filed belatedly by the second opposite party was not received by the Forum as costs ordered was not paid.
5. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.A1 and A2.
6. The counsel for the appellant has stressed the fact that the complainant has used the tyre for more than one year and 2 months and it was not proper for the Forum to order the replacement of the tyre along with compensation. It is also contended that there is no expert evidence in the matter. It was also pointed out that the Forum has not considered the contention that the JCB was being used for commercial purpose.
7. The counsel for the respondent has cited the decision in Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 1 (2005) CPJ 27 (NC) where- in the National Commission has held that the goods purchased or services hired in activity which is directly not intended to generate profit cannot be treated as commercial purpose. In view of the above decision cited, we find that the contention of the appellant regarding the commercial purpose has no merits.
8. In view of the amount involved adducing of expert evidence in the matter would not be feasible.
9. We find that the complainant has used the tyre for more than one year. Hence it is not just to order total replacement as such.
10. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is modified to the effect that the opposite parties would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.8000/- to the complainant instead of replacing the tyre. The order with respect to compensation and costs is sustained.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
12. The opposite parties are directed to make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% per annum on Rs.8000/- from the date of this order.
Office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
Pronounced
Dated the 26 April 2010
[HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]
PRESIDENT