C.C filed on: 02-03-2009 <br /> Disposed on: 24-06-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT<br /> NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052<br /> <br /> C.C. NO.520/2010<br /> Dated of this 24th day of June 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> Present<br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa, President<br /> Sri.Ganganarasaiah, Member<br /> Smt.Anita Shivakumar.K., Member<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> Sri.M.J.Badrinath<br /> S/o. Sri.M.R.Jayaram, Complainant <br /> Aged about 59 years,<br /> # 20, old Madras Road,<br /> Indiranagar, Bangalore <br /> <br /> AND<br /> <br /> 1. Ravindu Motors Pvt. Ltd, <br /> Vaswani Victoria,<br /> # 30, old No.5, Victoria <br /> Road, Bangalore-25 Opposite parties <br /> 2. Good Year India Ltd,<br /> Mathura Road,<br /> Ballabgarh, Faridabad <br /> (Harayana) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa, President <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as Ops for short) are that, he purchased an Innova vehicle from 1st OP had on 20-2-2008. That he was using that vehicle and it was in good running condition and was using cautiously. That the right tyre got punctured and tyres of 2nd OP were fitted to the vehicle when the vehicle was delivered to him. That he was informed that tyres fitted to tyres were superior quality and they were tube less. That he got the punctured tyre inspected through 1st OP from the official of 2nd OP on 18-4-2008 who reported that external side wall of the tyre was cut but was not rectified inspite of his request. That the tyre provided to the vehicle was having manufactured defect. That he despite visit the 1st OP several times to get the defective tyre replaced the Ops did not oblige him. He got issued a legal notice on 19-9-2008. Hence, he prayed awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 24% per annum. <br /> <br /> 2. Ops No.1 and 2 have appeared through their advocate and filed versions. 1st OP in his version denied that the complainant was using the vehicle cautiously, admitting to had sold the vehicle to the complainant has also admitted that tyres of 2nd OP were fitted to that vehicle and stated that tyres were tubeless tyres and there was no possibility of tyres getting punctured. That complainant has not stated as when he took tyres from showroom and has stated that tyre in question when brought to his notice was got inspected from 2nd OP who have after inspection informed them that due to external side wall cut the tubeless tyre came to be damaged. That was not due to defect in the tyre. It the complainant had used the vehicle carefully, that damage would not have happened and OP further denying that there was any defect in the manufacturing of tyres and stating that tyre was cut from external force has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. 2nd OP in his version has contended that, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and himself. That they had not supplied or sold tyres to the complainant nor received any consideration. Therefore, the complaint against them is not maintainable. This OP further stated had supplied quality tyres to 1st OP who fitted to that vehicle. When they got the tyre tested by their service engineer as per norms they found that tyre had external side wall damages i.e. through cut due to a sharp object came in contact to the external side wall of the tyre. Therefore the claim of the complainant was rejected and intimation was given to 1st OP and has denied there was any manufacturing defect in the tyre and denying their liability has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Ops No.1 and 2 have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith complaint has produced a copy of tax invoice for having purchased the vehicle, a copy of the vehicle, inspection report with a copy of legal notice, he got issued to the Ops, Ops have not produced any documents. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 5. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that one of the tyres fitted to his car, purchased from 1st OP was having manufacturing defect and that Ops have caused deficiency in their service in not replacing it?<br /> 2. To what relief the complaint is entitled?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:<br /> Answer on point No.1: In the negative <br /> Answer on point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS:<br /> 7. Answer on point No.1: As seen from the contention of the parties, we find no dispute between them in this, the complainant having had purchased an Innova car from 1st OP on 20-2-2009. It is also not in dispute that tyres manufactured by 2nd OP were purchased by 1st OP and fitted to that vehicle before it was delivered to the complainant. <br /> <br /> 8. The complainant has contended that one of the tyres fitted to his vehicle got punctured and that official of 2nd OP after inspecting it on 18-4-2008 told him that tyre was damaged due to external side wall cut. The complainant himself has produced inspection report of 2nd OP experts who tested the tyre and given opinion that external side wall of the tyre was cut and it was damaged. The complainant is not disputing the test done by the OP and opinion he has given with regard to the nature of damage. The complainant himself in his complaint has stated that when he took delivery of the vehicle it was good and running condition. But he has not stated as to when that defect in the tyre was noticed or happened. However he has stated that defecting in the tyre was inspected by men of 2nd OP on 18-4-2008. If there was intrinsic defect in the tyres as stated by the complainant, he could not have run the vehicle and the vehicle could not have run in good condition. It is found that the vehicle had run in good condition for few months there after a tyre got damaged. Therefore, the complainant is required to prove that the defect, he noticed in the tyre was a manufacturing defect. <br /> <br /> 9. The complainant except alleging that one of the tyres of the car had manufacturing defect has not chosen to substantiate it or prove it through any means known to law. Thus, in the absence of such proof, opinion or evidence mere allegation. In our view, is not enough. Ops have sworn to an affidavit and complainant himself has produced a copy of inspection report wherein it is stated that one of the tyres external wall was cut and therefore it was damaged. Evidence of Ops prove that external side wall cutting of the tyre was not a manufacturing defect but it was a cut from external object. This evidence of the OP and the opinion has not been controverted and rebutted by the complainant. Hence, one of the tyres was damaged due to cut on its external side wall was cut by outside sharp object has remained un-contradicted. If there were to be manufacturing defect it would not have been like a cut mark on the external wall but it would have led to burst, complainant thus has not made any effort to prove that tyre had manufacturing defect and as such we find no merits in his allegation and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed, with the result, we answer point no.1 in the negative and we pass the following: <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> Complaint is dismissed. Both the parties to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 24th June 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Member Member President<br /> <br />