CEAT LIMITED Vs. ROURKELA CONSUMERS FRONT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal has been directed against the orders dated 5. 11. 1997 of the District Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela in C. D. Case No. 312 of 1997 directing the opposite parties to replace the tyre and tube under dispute and handover a defect free tube and tyre of the jeep without any extra charges and cost of litigation rupees 300 to the complainant.

(2.) OPPOSITE Party Nos. 2 and 3 are the appellants and opposite party No. 1 is the respondent No. 3 and complainant viz. , General Secretary, Rourkela Consumers' Frong and Mr. Salib Patnaik, OIS are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in this appeal.

(3.) C. D. Case No. 312 of 1997 has been filed by the General Secretary, Rourkela Consumers' Front on behalf of Mr. Salil Patnaik, OIS, the District Information to Public Relations Officer, in short, D. I. to P. R. O. , Panposh, Rourkela. The case of the complainant in brief is that as the Head of the D. I. to P. R. O. , Rourkela unit, Salil Patnaik purchased four numbers of tyres and tubes to be used in the office jeep on 17. 3. 1997 on payment of price rupees, 10,152 from opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 3. Opposite Party No. 1 is the authorised dealer of CEAT tyres. He had given guarantee of these materials for one year. On 10. 7. 1997 when Salil Patnaik was proceeding to his office situated at Panposh, Rourkela through the Ring Road in the said office jeep, the rear right side tyre and tube were brushed. Salil Patnaik handed over the brushed tyre tube to opposite party No. 1 to replace the same to which opposite party No. 1 assured for replacement within a week. After one week when Salil Patnaik approached opposite party No. 1, opposite party No. 1 told him that, he has referred the matter to opposite party No. 2 the appellant No. 1. Then on 28. 7. 1997, opposite party No. 1 informed Salil Patnaik in writing (Annexure 11) to receive back the tyre which is lying with him as the company i. e. , M/s. CEAT limited has rejected his complaint on the ground that here is no manufacturing defect in said tyre and tube. Therefore, Salil Patnaik filed the C. D. Case through respondent No. 1 claiming for replacement of the damaged tyre and tube by new one, to pay compensation of Rupees 2,000 towards harassment and mental agony and cost of litigation of rupees 500 to him against all the opposite parties.