MANAGER,MRF LTD Vs. K SUDEVAN & OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the first opposite party and respondents 1 and 2 were the complainant and second opposite party in OP.No.2/03 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint in OP.2/03 was filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 with respect to the sale of a defective tyre to the complainant. The complainant alleged manufacturing defect in the said tyre with Serial No.57103622729 which was purchased by the complainant from the second opposite party/dealer. The first opposite party is the manufacturer of the said tyre. Thereby, the complainant prayed for replacement of the defective tyre by a new tyre and also for compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

(2.) THE first opposite party (the manufacturer of the tyre) filed written version denying and disputing the alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It was contended that the complainant is not a consumer coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and so complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. It was further contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the said disputed tyre and the damage to the tyre occurred due to the neglected use of the same by the complainant. The first opposite party/manufacturer had also requested the Forum below to subject the said tyre for expert examination. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint in OP.2/03.

(3.) THE second opposite party, the dealer of the said tyre remained absent.