KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO: 82/2011

 JUDGMENT DATED:19-03-2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd.,

Sri.M.V.Road, Mumbai-59 also having-

Office at Essen Buildings, 10/440

E & G Puthiya Road, Irumpanam.P.O,

Thrippunithura, R/by                                           : APPELLANT

Mr.M.V.Vishnu, S/o Manoharan,

Technical Service Engineer & Power of

Attorney Holder.

(By Adv.Sri.Bilahari.G.R)

          Vs.

1.      Dr.V.V.Rajamohan,

Manideepam, VPS Nagar,

Nirmalagiri P.O. Kannur.

                                                                   : RESPONDENTS

2.      M/s Hyundai KTC Automobiles,

Thane, Kannur.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.36/06 in the file of CDRF, Kannur.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.4200/- the cost of the tyres purchased and Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost.

2.      The matter is with respect to the damaged tyres purchased by the complainant on 2/9/2004 with respect to his new Accent CRDI car.  After 7000.Kms one tyre was found totally damaged exposing the steel wires inside the tyre and after 16000 Kms another tyre was also totally damaged.  According to the complainant the steel wires got exposed and that there were no other visible external damages.

3.      The opposite parties have disputed the claim contending that the expert of the opposite parties who examined the tyres have reported that there is no manufacturing defects.  It is the case that the tyres got punctured due to impact of a hard external object.

4.      Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to A7, B1 to B5, CW1 and Ext.C1.

5.      We find that the finding of the Forum is supported by the report of the expert commissioner.  The appellant has disputed the qualification of the commissioner.  The Commissioner is a Foreman in a tyre retreading company having experience of 16 years.  The appellant ought to have opposed the appointment of the commissioner at the initial stage and submitted a panel to the choice of the appellant.  In the circumstances we find that at this stage it cannot be contended that the commissioner is not an expert.  On a perusal of the order of the Forum we find that there is no patent illegality.  There is no scope for admitting the appeal.  In the result the appeal is dismissed in-limine.

The office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE  K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

VL.