CEAT LIMITED Vs. BIJU THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Idukki in O. P. No.649/94. The first opposite party is the appellant.

(2.) The complainant purchased two tyres manufactured by the first opposite party from the second opposite party for his vehicle paying consideration of Rs.5,050/-. On 20.11.94 the edge of one of the tyres was seen expanded and unfit for use. The defect was intimated to thc2nd opposite party and as advised by the second opposite party the complainant returned the damaged tyre for his examination and again entrusted it to the first opposite party as directed by the 2nd opposite party for its replacement. On 20.12.94 the complainant received a letter from the first opposite party declining to settle claim.

(3.) The opposite party filed a version stating that there is no manufacturing defect, that on intimation of the damage the Territory Service Engineer of the first opposite party inspected the tyre and it was found that the damage occurred due to mishandling and not due to any manufacturing defect. When case was posted for evidence and hearing, the opposite party was absent and they were set ex-parte. An affidavit was filed by the complainant and the District Forum passed an order without entering a finding whether there is any manufacturing defect directing the second opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.500/- towards cost. The complainant is also allowed to recover the price of the damaged tyre.