KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

             VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM                                                                                         

                                     APPEALNO.146/2010

                             JUDGMENT DATED 7.7.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   --  PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                         --  MEMBER

1.       Mr.James, Proprietor,

Shama Auto Scan,

Near St.Peters Church,

(Thattavara Complex)

Pathanamthitta.

2.       Manager,                                                     --  APPELLANTS

M/s Bridgestone India Ltd.

Essen Building, 10/440, E & G

Puthiya Road, Irumbanam P.O,

Thripunithura, PIN 682 309.

3.       General  Manager,

          Bridge Stone Sales and Marketing Head office.

Bridge Stone  India Pvt.Ltd.

          IVth Floor, A-Wing,

          Trade Star Building, M.V.Road

Andheri, Kurla Road,

Andheri East,Mumbai- 59.

4.       Managing Director,

          Bridgestone Head Office & Registered Office,

          Bridgestone ACC India Ltd.

Plot No.12, Kheda Growth Centre,

Pithampur Post – Sagore

Dist.Dhar (M.P)

             (By Adv.George Cherian Karippaparambil)

                             Vs.

Mr.M.S.Radhakrishnan,

Meppurath House, Kuzhikala Muri,

Mallappuzhassery Village,

Kozhenchery Taluk,                                      --  RESPONDENT

Pathanakthitta )Dist)

                                                  JUDGMENT        

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/dealer/distributor/ manufacturer in CC.76/07 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta.  The appellants are  under orders   to replace the tyre within one month or to pay Rs.1,900/- the cost of the tyre with 9% interest from the date of the order and  cost of Rs.500/-.

It is the case of the complainant that he purchased 2 Bridge Stone tyres  of his car on 6.11.06 and on 26.12.06  when the complainant was driving his car with Pathanamthitta Town, one of the tyres of his vehicle deflated which caused traffic jam and resulted in inconvenience and annoyance to the traffic king  public.  The opposite parties refused to replace the tyre.       He has filed seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of  Rs.6,800/-.

It is the contention of the appellants that the damage to the tyre was caused due to sidewall cut penetration by some external sharp object.  There is no manufacturing defect.

          Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A10,   DW1, and Exts. B1 to B4.

          The   appellant has relied   on Ext.B3 report, the  receipt issued to the complainant when the tyre was brought back.  It is mentioned therein as  “sidewall cut” as the complaint.  It is pointed out that it contained the signature of the customer.  There is also a report from the opposite parties wherein it is mentioned that the tyre got deflated because of the sidewall cut penetration by some external sharp object and that there is no manufacturing defect.

          We find that the above report produced by the  opposite parties have not been proved properly by examining the person who issued the same.  There is nothing in evidence to show as to whether they have tested the tyre apart from examining the tyre externally.  Evidently, it was a brand new tyre.  Further it   is unlikely to result in   sidewall cut by the penetration of external sharp object as the penetration is likely to   happen.  On   the bottom portion of the tye with touches the road.  In the circumstances, we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 

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

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR  --  MEMBER