BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.171/2014

DATED ON THIS THE 3^rd February 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri DEVAKUMAR.M.C,

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite party, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to pay Rs.16,04,180.85 compensation for the damages, medical expenditure with other reliefs.
2.     The complainant purchased 20 tyres and fitted one of those tyre on its vehicle.  Same got burst on 27.10.2013 and due to the same one of the passenger got injured, who was travelling in the bus.  The passenger was treated at B.G.S. Apollo Hospital.  The bursting of the tyre was due to manufacturing defect and use of poor quality of materials.  The tyre and tube has been inspected by M/s Birla Tyre Co. representatives who reported that there is no manufacturing defect in the tube, the defect is only with the tyre.  The complainant got issued a legal notice on 09.11.2013, calling upon the opposite party to compensate the loss suffered, but opposite party gave an untenable reply on 27.11.2013.  Hence, the aggrieved complainant filed the complaint, alleging deficiency in service and sought for the reliefs.
3.     The opposite party clarified the complainant on 08.11.2013 that the tyre burst was not caused due to any manufacturing defects but for other reasons.  The opposite party submitted that, the complainant has used the tube manufactured by M/s Biral Tyre Co. so due to manufacturing defect in the tube, the tyre got burst from inside the sidewall and shoulder of the tyre.  Thereby submits, the complainant has not used the roadworthy tube which resulted in burst of the tyre.  Hence, denies the allegation as false and not liable to pay any damages to the complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4.     To establish the facts, the complainant lead his evidence by filing affidavit and relied on several documents.  The opposite party filed its affidavit with certain documents.  Both parties filed written arguments and made oral submissions.  Perusing the material on record, posted for orders.
5.      The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, in not compensating the loss suffered on account of bursting of the tyre due to manufacturing defect and causing injury to the passenger and thereby entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant purchased 20 Nylon Tyres on 16.08.2013 from opposite party.  One of the tyre has been fitted on to the vehicle bearing No.KA-09-F-4445 on 03.09.2013 and run for about 11033 kms.  Subsequently, the same tyre fitted with another vehicle bearing No.KA-09-F-4464 on 27.10.2013 to the front left side of the bus.
8.   The said tyre got burst on 27.10.2013 itself, when the bus was proceeding towards Kaniyanahundi.  On account of burst, one of the passenger travelling in bus sustained injuries, as the mudguard pieces pierced inside the bus injuring the passenger, who was immediately rushed to the hospital for treatment.  The complainant alleged that, bursting of the tyre was due to poor quality of material used in manufacturing of the tyre.
9.   The tyre and tube has been inspected by M/s Biral tyre company officials, who reported that due to impact and bursting of the tyre, the tube got bursted.  There was no manufacturing defect in the tube. 
10.   Further, the complainant has paid compensation of Rs.1,85,322/- to the passenger towards her medical expenses.  The said passenger has filed an MVC case, seeking further compensation of Rs.14,95,000/-, which is pending for disposal.  Inspite of issue of a legal notice on 09.11.2013, calling upon the opposite party to compensate the loss, the opposite party failed to comply.  Hence, the complaint seeking reliefs.
11.   The opposite party contended that, on receipt of complaint regarding the bursting of the tyre, a joint meeting was held with complainant’s Chief Mechanical Engineer at Bangalore on 08.11.2013, and it has clearly narrated the facts, relating to the burst of the tyre.  Specifically, the said bursting of the tyre was not due to any manufacturing defect, as the same was occurred inside the wall and shoulder of the tyre.  The complainant has used the tube of different manufacturer i.e. M/s Biral Tyre Co. but not the tube manufactured by the opposite party.  The opposite party contended that, the tube used was not road worthy and the same might have attributed to bursting of the tyre.
12.   The opposite party denied the allegations due to bursting of the tyre the mudguard of the bus got damaged and pierced, the leg of the passenger and the same cannot be attributed due to manufacturing defect in the tyre.  The burst may be due to the condition of the road, overloading of the passenger, driving practices etc.  Further, the complainant being in the field of manufacture of quality tyre never received any such complaints since its inception.  Because, the opposite party ensures the use of quality materials in manufacture of its products and inspection procedure at all stages of manufacturing process and appropriate quality testing methods to ensure defect free products.

13.  The complainant has produced the opinion expressed by M/s Biral Tyre Co. whose tube has been used inside the tyre at the time of bursting of the tyre, who reported the tube does not suffer any manufacturing defects. Same appears to be one sided and hence not acceptable. 

14.   With the above contention, opposite party contended that, there is no deficiency in service on its part and they are not liable to pay any damages to the complainant.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

15.   The photograph produced by the complainant, clearly goes to show that the tyre got burst at the side wall region.  The joint inspection report, submitted by opposite party clearly disclose that, there is tampering of data in the tyre history card entries, rupture of the tube at the same spot of burst of the tyre, tube is of repaired and used /old, Birla make, month and year as 08/12.  The flap used of local company with make month and year as 06/13.  Further, the vehicle fitted with the said tyre had run for about 11033 kms without any defects and on fitting of the same on a different vehicle, the tyre got bursted on the same day.  Hence, the allegations of manufacturing defect is not acceptable.  As such, we opine that, the complainant fail to establish that, there is manufacturing defect in the tyre and deficiency in service in compensating the loss suffered by opposite party.  As such, the opposite party is not liable to pay any damages to the complainant.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.

16. Point No.2:-With the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 3^rd February 2017)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER