R.Lakshminarsimha Rao - (1.)The complainant is the appellant. These appeals F.A.No.998 of 2007, 1021 of 2007, 1022 of 2007 and 1023 of 2007 are filed against the orders of the District Forum II Hyderabad in C.C.No.519 of 2006, C.C.No.803 of 2006, C.C.No.214 of 2006 and C.C.No.287 of 2006 respectively.
(2.)The facts of all the appeals are identical in nature. As such they are proposed to be disposed of by a common order. F.A.No.998 of 2007 is taken as the lead case.
(3.)The facts of the case as represented by the complainant are that the complainant had purchased 8 MRF tyres from the dealer of the opposite party namely, M/s SV Tyres Secunderabad on 18.7.2005 for a consideration of Rs.56,300/-. The MRF tyres were prematurely worn-out, canvas was visible, tread became flat despite taking precautions of interchange of wheels and tyres, keeping air pressure within 85 kgs and 105 kgs etc. The tyres had run for about 35,000 kms as against the guaranteed life of 80,000 kms. The complainant represented on 23.5.2005 to the opposite party that the eight tyres were prematurely failed and worn out. The complainant requested the opposite party to replace the defective tyres with new tyres of the same size and brand or refund the amount of RS.56,300/- along with interest. The complainant has got issued legal notice dated 5.6.2006 with a demand for replacement of the tyres. The opposite party gave reply on 6.6.2006 and 8.6.2006 that the complainant should send the defective tyres to them through the dealer for inspection and examination. The opposite party had given reply notice dated 30.6.2006 stating that no guarantee was given to the complainant and denied to replace the defective tyres. The opposite party resorted to play unfair trade practice on the complainant. The complainant claimed replacement of eight defective MRF tyres with new tyres or in the alternative refund of an amount of Rs.56,300/- with interest @ 24% per annum and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.