BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 310/2013
Mr. Samiulla Jukako, R/o Ramanabailu, Sirsi 581 401, Uttar Kannada. (By Sri Mohan Malge) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | The CEO, Appollo Tyres, 4th Floor, Cherupushpam Building, Shanmugam Road, Kochi 682 031, Kerala State. (By Sri M. Sudhakar) | …Respondent/s |
2. | The Proprietor, M/s Mahalasa Stores, Nataraj Road, SIRSI 581 401, Uttar Kannada, Karnatak. (Served absent) | |
ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER
1. The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.30.11.2011 passed in CC.No.68/2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gulbarga.
2. The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased two Apollo Tyres from Opposite Party No.2 vide bill No.5285 dt.09.06.2012 for Rs.7,500/- each and the complainant paid in total Rs.15,000/-. The complainant using the tyres by running the Bolero vehicle for domestic purpose and it has not been used for the commercial purpose. The complainant further alleged that within 1 ½ month, one of the tyre had been exploded due to manufacturing defect. The complainant returned the tyres for replacement, but, the Opposite Party No.2 failed to do the needful despite legal notice dt.02.08.2012 and contended that the complainant used the Bolero vehicle for commercial purpose and denied that there is manufacturing defect. The tyre was inspected by the Service Engineer who has submitted his report as “Sidewall through cut”, which occurs due to penetration of sharp external object and refused to replace the tyre. For which the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission and after trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.
3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ complainant is in appeal. Heard the arguments of the appellant. Inspite of sufficient opportunity provided to the respondents, they have not submitted their arguments.
4. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the Order and the materials on record, we noticed that it is an undisputed fact that the complainant has purchased the two Apollo Tyres from Respondent No.2 for Rs.7,500/- each and within 1 ½ month one of the tyre was exploded. It is also not in dispute that the complainant returned the exploded tyre to the Respondent No.2 and sought for replacement. The main allegation of the complainant is that he has purchased the two tyres at a time and one of the tyre was burst due to manufacturing defect and another one is running under good condition. On going through the materials on record, there is no any evidence to establish the manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant before the District Commission by reference to any expert report in this regard. On the other hand, the respondents came with plea that there was no manufacturing defect in tyre and in support the respondents have produced “Technical Evaluation Report” which is marked as Ex.R-3 before the Commission below wherein the cause of damage to the tyre is mentioned as defect was found at side wall through cuts which causes due to penetration of sharp at side wall. When the manufacturing defect is alleged by the complainant, the onus has to be on the complainant to prove the same. More so, the complainant also did not disclose in its complaint where and how the tyre burst except the general contention that the purchased tyre was burst. The complainant has produced some photographs before the District Commission, however, in our opinion, mere photographs are not substitute for an expert opinion to hold that the tyre has manufacturing defect. The complainant alleged that the tyre purchased by him was burst due to manufacturing defect, hence, it is the duty of the complainant to prove the reason for bursting the tyre which the complainant did not mention in his claim petition. Mere bursting of tyre itself cannot be a ground to hold that the tyre has manufacturing defect. Hence, considering the above facts, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. There is no any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission. Accordingly, we do not found any merits in the appeal, hence, interference is not required. Hence, the following;,
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
