JAGDISH PRASAD KHANDELWAL Vs. PRATAP CHANDRA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed by opposite party No. 1 of the C.D. Case No. 280 of 1993 challenging the orders dated 17.2.1997 of the District Forum, Mayurbhanj at Baripada.

(2.) FACTS in brief as per the complaint is that opposite party No. 2/respondent No. 3 is the tyre and tube manufacturing company and opposite party No. 1/appellantis his authorized dealer. The complainants are two brothers and have purchased on 21.1.1993 two Dunlop x M Rlb9 -00 -20 tyres, two tubes and two flaps worth Rs. 13,500 as per credit memo (Ext. 1) (xerox copy of cash memo) from opposite party No. 1 on credit on payment of Rs. 4,200 by complainant No. 1 promising to pay the balance amount in future according to the complainant. They have fitted the tyres, tubes and flap in their truck bearing No. ORM 9798 and used the truck. Purchase on credit was not mentioned in the cash memo and at the time of full payment, opposite party No. 1 demanded and filially received from them Rs. 14,200 making endorsement on the backside of the credit memo which they knew after getting the original credit memo (Ext. 1). On 4.7.1993 at 3 a.m., the truck suddenly turned upside downnear Kansabansa bridge and fell under the bridge as the front new right side tyre bearing No. DP 065 burst of due to gross manufacturing defect and was sub -standard, when the truck was being driven at very low speed and carefully. Sora P.S. Case was registered for the accident. The Motor Vehicles Inspector, in short, the M.V.I. on spot verification on 6.7.1993 reported vide report (Ext. 2) (xerox copy) that as the tyre of front right side burst, the truck was not controllable and accident took place. Complainant had purchased new tyre to bring truck to road. The truck remained idle for ten days and put complainants into loss. The truck driver faced criminal proceeding and they have spent rupees 2,500 to bring the truck on road. When the complainants approached opposite party No.1, instead of helping them he misbehaved with them. Thus they having suffered from monetary loss, harassment and mental agony, complainants filed the C.D. Case claiming compensation of Rs. 22,450.

(3.) THE opposite party No. 1 vide his written version though has admitted as the local dealer of opposite party No. 2 -manufacturer of tyre, tube and flap and to have sold alleged numbers of tyres, tubes and flaps to the complainant yet denied to have demanded and received Rs. 700 more towards price of the sold articles. He denied to have issued credit memo and to have written the figures of price at the reverse of Ext.1 stating that Ext. 1 has been purely manipulated and forged for the purpose of this case. His specific case is that he has sold these articles in good and perfect condition for Rs. 13,500. The accident in question was long after purchase of the same and there might have been much wear and tear caused to the tyre. But being requested by the complainants, when he wrote about this to the opposite party No. 2, opposite party No.2 after verification intimated that the tyres were perfect and the accident might have been due to faulty driving and did not replace tyres. According to opposite party No. 1, he is not liable if there is any manufacturing defect in these goods and the tyres if at all found to be defective, at best opposite party No. 2 - manufacturer, can be made liable to pay compensation. He has denied all othe allegations made by the complainant and had claimed for dismissal of the CD. Case having been filed for mala fide intention.