KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM F.A.No.84/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06.03.2010 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER M/s.Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Essen Building, 10/440, E & G, Puthiya Road, Irumbanam.P.O., Thripunithura, Pin – 682 309. : APPELLANT (By Adv.Sri.GeorgeCherian Karippaparambil) Vs 1. Mr.K.J.Thomas, aged 69 years, Kuzhithottu House, Meenachil, Pala, Kottayam (Dist.) : RESPONDENTS 2. M/s.Popular Hyundai, M/s.Popular Motor World Pvt. Ltd., PMC/III/162, Century Veetee Arcade, Near Kottarmattom Private Bus Stand, Vellapadu, Pala – 686 575 JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is a 2nd opposite party/ manufacturer of the Bridegestone tyres in C.C.275/08 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2,700/- with interest at 9% per annum and also to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a new Hyundai car /Verna CDDI engine with the tyre of Bridgestone. The purchase was on 17.10.2006. On 08.07.07 the tyre got punctured. The staff of the air filling station informed the complainant that the side wall of the tyre is in a damaged condition. He contacted the Hundai Service Centre as the tyre had warranty. The tyre was sent to the 2nd opposite party, the dealers of the tyres. They refused to take responsibility contending that the tyre was punctured by penetration of some external sharp object and that there is no manufacturing defect. The petitioner purchased a new tyre for a sum of Rs.2,700/-. The opposite party denied manufacturing defect and contended that the tyre has been damaged as it was punctured by an external sharp object. The evidence adduced consist the proof affidavits of the respective parties and Exts. A1 to A3 and Exts.B1 and B2. It is the contention of the counsel of the appellant that there is no expert evidence adduced by the complainant to establish manufacturing defect. The Forum has stressed the fact that the damage is side wall cut and hence penetration of external object is not probable. It was also found that the appellant has not examined the issue properly. We find that there is no case that the car had run sufficient number of kilometers so as to justify the possible damage. As the price of the tyre is only Rs. 2700/- adducing expert evidence at the instance of the complainant is not feasible. We find that there is no patent illegality in the appreciation of the evidence. We find that 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 urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER kb | 
