For the Appellant : Mr. B.V. Deepak, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Aditya Narian, Ms. Shuchi Singh and Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate

Dated, the 25th day of August, 2010

ORDER

JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

 Aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in ..2.. short, ‘the State Commission’) vide order dated 30.04.07 in O.P. No. 80/2000, the original complainant, Mr. K. Raghunathan, Government Contractor has filed the present appeal before this Commission. 2. The consumer dispute raised before the State Commission related to alleged manufacturing defects in the rear tyres fixed in the tripper lorry manufactured by opposite party No.1, Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties, Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. as well as M/s. J.K. Industries, manufacturer of tyres in question. It would appear that during the proceedings of the complaint, Mr. C. Sivaramakrishna Pillai, an Engineer and Insurance Service and Loss Assessor was appointed to inspect the vehicle and tyres in question and to give his report. He submitted a report dated 5.07.01 and was subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the opposite parties. The State Commission, going by the respective pleas, evidence and the material produced on record, however, dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant has failed to establish any manufacturing defect in the tyres in question and has saddled the complainant with costs of Rs.500/- payable to the opposite party no.2. ..3.. 3. The appeal was filed after considerable delay and it was alleged that the State Commission had taken 262 days to supply the free certified copy of the impugned order to the complainant and, therefore, the delay on the part of the complainant was negligible. A report of the State Commission was obtained from which it was noticed that there was undue delay in supplying the copy of the order to the complainant. In these circumstances, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. B.V. Deepak, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Aditya Narain, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent no.2 and have considered their respective submissions. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and the material produced on record, in particular, the State Commission having failed to take into account the intrinsic value of the report submitted by Mr. C. Sivaramakrishna Pillai, Surveyor in regard to nature and origin of the defects in the tyres. On the other hand, Mr. Aditya Narain, learned counsel for the ..4.. respondent No.1, TELCO and Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, M/s. J.K. Industries Ltd. support the order as fully justified and based on proper appreciation of the evidence produced on record. In any case, submission put forth on behalf of the respondent no.1, TELCO is that the appellant had approached the State Commission with a specific plea and claim in regard to the defects in the tyres and had not alleged any manufacturing defect in the vehicle as such and since the State Commission has accordingly found that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle no liability can be enfastened on opposite party no.1. Having considered the matter in its entirety and going by the report of Mr. C. Sivaramakrishna Pillai, Surveyor and his cross-examination by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish any manufacturing defect in the tyres manufactured by the opposite party no.2. It is common knowledge that excessive tear and wear of one or more rear or front tyres of the vehicle is generally accountable to various factors like improper alignment and balancing of wheels, road conditions, driving habits etc. In these circumstances, we find that the order passed by the State ..5.. Commission does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality which calls for interference at our end. The appeal is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.