SRI. K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. Madhu Gangadharan has filed this complaint before the forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The contentions of the complainant is that he had purchased one TATA Sumo VICTA G & E 11.7 STR from the 4th opposite party which was manufactured and marketed by opposite parties 1 to 3 as per the invoice No. 342 dated 09-06-2005 and registered as No. KL-04/S-4709. He was using the vehicle as Tourist vehicle and he was driving the vehicle and maintained it properly. On 08-08-2005 at about 5 am, while coming from Alleppey to Mavelikara in National High Way 47 in a moderate speed, the front side left wheel happened to burst and as a result the vehicle diverted to the hand race of the Kannukali Bridge near Karuvatta, and sustained damages to the body of the said vehicle. The vehicle could not be taken from the spot and the incident was communicated to the dealer of the vehicle and recovery unit of the 4th opposite party. They have taken away the vehicle to their workshop at Kochi. The tyre which was fitted on the vehicle made of Bridge Stone India Ltd. The expert of the said company reported after examination, that the bursting of the tyre occurred due to the improper fitment of the tyre. The complainant contacted the opposite parties, for compensation. There was no positive steps on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. 2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed version along with documents. In the version, the opposite parties 1 to 3 have stated that the complainant is not a consumer. There is no deficiency in service on their part. It is stated that at the time of taking the delivery of the said vehicle, the complainant had personally inspected the vehicle and only after being convinced of the condition, the complainant had taken delivery and they denied the charge of improper fitment of tyre. It is further stated that the 4th opposite party had also conducted a pre-delivery inspection at the time of delivery. It is stated that the bursting of the tyre was occurred due to the rush and negligent driving of the vehicle. The complainants vehicle is a power steering vehicle. It will avoid the vehicle skidding to any one particular side at the time of sudden tyre burst, if the vehicle is driven at a normal speed. The incident of the vehicle shows that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. 3. In the version, 4th opposite party also stated the similar objection of the opposite parties 1 to 3. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues: - 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the opposite parties? 5. Issues 1 and 2: - On the side of the complainant, he has filed proof affidavit and produced documents in evidence, marked as Exts. A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is the Bill dated 19-08-2005 showing the details of expenses incurred in connection with the said accident. Ext. A2 is the claim application together with the claim advise letter. It shows that the cause is the improper fitment and not any manufacturing defect. Ext. A3 is the advocate letter dated 07-10-2005 of the complainant addressed to the opposite parties. Ext. A4 is the reply notice dated 28-10-2005 of the 4th opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A5 series is the photograph of the vehicle, claim advice letter and pre-delivery inspection check list. Opposite parties produced Ext. B1 document, i.e. pre delivery inspection check list. On a verification of the documents, it can be seen that while in journey on 08-08-2005 at 5 am, all on a sudden the front side left wheel burst and due to this the vehicle diverted to the hand race of the bridge and sustained serious danger to the body of the vehicle. The incident was occurred within 2 months from the date of taking the delivery of the vehicle. It is a power steering vehicle. The main purpose of providing power steering in a vehicle is to avoid the vehicle skidding anyone particular side at the time of a sudden tyre burst, if the vehicle is a driven at a normal speed. But the vehicle of the complainant skidded to one side and hit the side railings. This may indicate the over speed of the said vehicle. So the contention of the complainant regarding the improper fitment of the tyre, cannot be accepted as a valid ground. It is to be noticed that as the time of removing the vehicle from the yard of the 1st opposite party, a pre-delivery inspection was carried out to check whether all fittings are in proper and after ascertaining the proper fittings, the vehicle is removed from the yard. It is stated that the 4th opposite party had also carried out a pre-delivery inspection before the delivery of the vehicle to the complainant. In there circumstances, the contentions raised by the complainant cannot be accepted to state that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After taking the entire evidence adduced by both parties and after a detailed hearing and a careful readings of the depositions of the parties, we are of the strong view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and all the contentions raised by the complainant will not be sustained. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief prayed for. The issues are found in favour of the opposite parties. In the result, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this complaint is to be dismissed. Hence complaint dismissed. No orders as to costs. Complaint dismissed. Pronounced in Open forum on this the 28th day of August, 2008 Sd/- Sri. K.Anirudhan Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi APPENDIX Evidence of the Complainant: - PW1 - Madhu Gangadharan PW2 - Bilal PW3 - Gopalakrishna Pillai Ext. A1 19-08-2005 Cash/Credit Bill No. 5928 Ext. A2 19-08-2005 Claim Application Form, CAF No. 120074 Ext. A3 07-10-2005 Advocate letter Ext. A4 28-10-2005 Reply notice Ext. A5 series - Photographs of thevehicle Evidence of the opposite parties: - RW1 - Subhash A.K. Ext. B1 09-06-200-- Pre delivery inspection checklist // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/SF Typed by: Sh/- Compd by:
