ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. The complaint for seeking replacement of the tyres or the prize paid for the same with compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant has purchased two pieces of 175/70 R 13 MRF 2 VTS tyres and the same had been fitted by the authorized agent of the 2nd opp.party vide bill NO.1866 dt. 6.7.2007. On the same day of purchase the complainant drive the car with which the tyre in question was fitted and after traveling 7 km. westwards from Punalur one of the newly fitted tyres bursted and the damaged tyres had been returned to the 2nd opp.party. The incident had been reported to the 1st opp.party through the 2nd opp.party for which the complainant has received a rejection advice from the first opp.party through the 2nd opp.party on 7.8.2007f whereby it is regretted that they could not offer any replacement stating that they could not find any manufacturing defect. The inspection said to have been conducted by the first opp.party is not genuine and foolproof. There was no satisfactory service rendered by the opp.parties Hence the complaint. The 1st opp.party filed version contending, interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The tyre of size 175/70 R 13 having Serial No.61506850907 was received from Jacob Tyres, Punalur . On 6.7.2007 the opp.party’s Technical Service Personnel was thoroughly examined and after registering the same under complaint Docket No.72457 dt. 10.7.2007. His exam ination revealed that the tyre was damaged due to side wall concussion caused due to sudden impact with some hard stationary object while the vehicle was on motion. This is not due to any manufacturing defect of the tyre. Thereafter inspection of the tyre was returned to the 2nd opp.party vide delivery memo dt. 24.7.2007. The tyre mentioned the complaint is of a true and merchantable quality absolutely free from any manufacturing defect and was damaged only due the reason are false and hence denied. The tyre being a rubber product it cannot be foolproof against impact with sharp external objects. The report is prepared only after detailed and through inspection of the subject tyre. Hence the allegation that the inspection report is not a genuine one and there is no bonafides in the inspection report are all false and hence denied. The allegation that the opp.party has not provide satisfactory service is false and hence denied. The complainant is required to prove the same with strict proof. The opp.party has properly attended the complaint and has properly inspected the tyre and prepared the report. The allegation that the opp.party has not provide satisfactory service is false and hence denied. Since the tyre was damaged not due to any of the manufacturing defect the opp.party is not entitled to replace the tyre/refund the cost of tyre to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. No cause of action has arisen against the opp.party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Opp.party 2 has not filed version or not adduced any evidence. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the tyres have any manufacturing defect 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P11 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 and D2 are marked. Points: Here there is no dispute that the complainant purchased the disputed tyre from the 2nd opp.party who is the authorized agent of 1st opp.party and the tyre busted on the very same day of purchase. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased two pieces of MRF tyres from opp.party 2 on 6.7.2007. After that he drove the car with which the disputed tyre was fitted after traveling 7 km the said tyre busted. Suddenly the complainant approached the 2nd opp.party surrendered the tyre and requested for replacement of the disputed tyre. 2nd opp.party informed to the complainant that they could not offer any replacement stating that they could not find any manufacturing defect. 1st opp.party in their version submitted that the tyre was examined by the 1st opp.party’s Technical service personnel, who has opinioned that the damage is because of ‘side wall concussion’ caused due to sudden impact with some hard object while the vehicle was on motion and not because of a manufacturing defect. Here the questions for consideration are whether the tyre was suffering from manufacturing defect detected and whether opp.parties are liable. The only material available before us with regard to manufacturing defect is Ext. D1. But it cannot be accepted because it does not contain the seal of the company and signature of the expert who had prepared it. There is only an initial of somebody. As it is an important document it would have contain the seal and signature of the person who prepared it:. Thus actually there is no evidence or material before us about the manufacturing defect. Complainant’s case is that he surrendered the tyre before opp.party 2 and the said tyre is in the custody of opp.party 2. Opp.party 1 also admits that the tyre is in the custody of opp.party 2. Opp.party 2 did not turn up and remained absent not adduced any evidence before the Forum However it is beyond expection of a purchaser from such a reputed company that one tyre could be damaged on the very same day of purchase when the car had been driven only 7 kms. and when the car was not driven in rough road. Burden of proof regarding manufacturing defect to the tyres is on the complainant. Here the complainant did not take any steps to prove the manufacturing defect. Hence as there is no evidence with regard to manufacturing defect. Hence Opp.party 1 is not liable . Ext. D1 report by the opp.party’s own employee does not go a long way to assist his case and it cannot be treated as evidence without the testimony of an independent witness. . Ext.P6 shows that the complainant had purchased another tyre from opp.party 2 on 7.7.07. As no evidence is adduced from the side of opp.party 2, on consideration of entire evidence we are constrained to believe that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.party 2. In the result the complaint is allowed. 2nd opp.party is directed to pay Rs. 2700/- as the net value of the new tyre to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of purchase on 7.7.07 till the date of payment. Opp.party 2 is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings. The amounts payable under this order shall be paid within one months from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 29TH day of July, 2009. ADV. RAVI SUSHA : Sd/- R. VIJAYAKUMAR : Sd/- Descending Order K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT Points: The fact that the complainant purchased 2 tyres from opp.party 2 as per Ext.P4 and 5 and that one of the same busted on the same day while the car was running are not disputed. The contention of the complainant is that the tyre bursted due to manufacturing defect. According to the opp.parties there is no manufacturing defect to the tyre but it bursted due to side wall concussion caused because of the sudden impact with some hand object during motion. They have produced Ext. D1 inspection report prepared by their Technical service personal to establish that contention which seriously assailed by the complainant. It is an admitted fact that one of the tyres purchased by the complainant bursted on the same day of fitting before running hardly 7 kms. . It is not the duration of use or the distance covered which are material when manufacturing defect is alleged. If the complainant alleges that it is due to manufacturing defect and ignores Ext. D1 the burden is on the complainant to adduce expert evidence and establish that aspect. In the decision reported in 2008 [1] CPR 120 our own state Commission has held that ‘when complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the goods service should be proved by taking out a commission who should be competent in the filed It is mandatory provision is obvious from the wording should be proved. No attempt is made by the complainant herein to appoint an expert Commissioner and prove this case. From the available evidence it cannot be said that the complaint has succeeded in proving that the tyre bursted due to manufacturing defect. Therefore it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No cost I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – G. Georgekutty List of documents for the complainant P1. – Legal notice P2. – Acknowledgement P3. – Acknowledgement from Jacob Tyres P4. - Original bill for 2 tyres P5. – Cash bill dated 6.7.07 P7. – Bill of Jacob tyres dated 7.7.07 P8. – Letter dated 7.7.07 P9. – Receipt P10. – Application to MRF P11. – Inspection Docket from MRF List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Paul Cheriyan List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Inspection Docket D2. – Inspection docket dated 1.7.2007 | 
