ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed by the complainant to replace a new tyre in place of the damaged tyre 10,000/- as compensation and other reliefs.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant on 27.7.2005 purchased one CEAT tyre having serial No.AY 6713478P and Size NY 1000-20-16PR-PM Super, from the 1st opp.party for Rs.6577/- [Rupees six thousand five hundred and seventy seven only] for his using it in his own stage carriage bus. While the new tyre was being used in the stage carriage bus the tyre bursted on its sides and due to this it has become useless. This dam age occurred solely due to its manufacturing defect. The 1st opp.party informed the complainant labout letter from the 2nd opp.party stating that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre and so it can neither be repaired nor be replaced. This act of opp.party is nothing but deficiency in service. It also amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint<br /> The 1st opp.party filed a version contending as follows: The tyre sold by the 1st opp.party is free from any manufacturing defect or other defects. The tyres are made by using superior quality rubber by using most modern technology. So there is no chance for incurring any defect. The complainant was fully convinced about the quality of the tyre and so he purchased a CEAT tyre from this opp.party. Accordingly this opp.party sent the tyre to the inspection wing of CEAT tyre at Trivandrum for detailed investigation and examination. So there is no negligence or lapses on the part of 1st opp.party. Hence the 1st opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> The 3rd opp.party filed a version contending as follows: Items under complaint are examined by this opp.party’s technical personnel. the 3rd opp.party specifically denies the allegation that the damaged to the tyre occurred solely due to the manufacturing defect. The technical service engineer of this opp.party inspected the aforesaid tyres on 25.10.2005. On examination, it was found that the tyre was failed due to “SIDE WALL CUT’ which are the technical terminology used in the tyre trade to describe a tyre failure arising on account of the tyres being driven over a sharp object resulting to cuts on the shoulder of the tyres as described. From the above findings, it is clear that the cause of failure to the said tyres was attributable to the careless and negligent act of the complainant or his agents. Since the failure of the tyres was caused by external objects and service abuse by the complainant and not on account of manufacturing defect this opp.party is not liable to replace the said tyres with new tyres. Hence the 3rd opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> 2. Reliefs and costs.<br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Exts. P1 and P2 are marked.<br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Exts. D1 and D2 are marked.<br /> Points:<br /> The complainant had filed a complaint alleging g deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Opp.party No.1 is the authorized dealer of ceat tyres. The opp.parties 2 and 3 are engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of tyres.<br /> The brief of the complaint is that the complainant purchased are ceat tyre from the 1st opp.party for Rs.6577/-. While the said tyre was being used in the stage carriage bus, the tyre bursted on its sides and due to this it has become useless. It was his case that there was manufacturing defects in the tyre which were neither removed by the opp.party nor were they willing to replace the tyre, hence the complaint was filed. <br /> Complainant’s counsel argued that usually when a new tyre is purchased it can be used for 45,000 to 50,000 Kms. Without any problem. The tyre purchased from the 1st opp.party is used only for one month. This damage occurred solely due to its manufacturing defect.<br /> The opp.parties counsel argued that the damage to the tyre occurred got due the manufacturing defect. The Technical service Engineer of the opp.parties 2 and 3 inspected the said tyres and it was found that the tyre was failed due to “side wall cut”. This nature of damage is not caused by manufacturing defect.<br /> We heard the arguments and also perused the material on record. There is no disputing fact that the tyre was purchased from the 1st opp.party, manufactured by 2nd and 3rd opp.parties. From the complainant’s side there is no evidence brought on record, of any person qualified to state so, that the tyre had a manufacturing defect. After perusal of the documents produced from the complainant’s side, we do not see that any of them could be said to be leading us to conclude that there was manufacturing defect. But opp.party produced Ext.D1 the expert of their Technical Service Engineers that the failure is not due to any manufacturing defect. The cause of the failure is side wall cut. Here no one has stated that the tyre had any manufacturing defect, in the absence of which we are in no position to take any different view than from Ext.D1. The Kerala State Commission in the decision reported in 2008 [1] CPR 120 has held that when complaint alleges manufacturing defect in the goods, same should be proved by taking out a commission who should be competent in the field. Such a report is significantly absent herein. So the complaint has failed to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the tyre supplied by the opp.parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed without cost.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 1st day of November, 2008.<br /> <br /> .<br /> I n d e x<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – Brahmadas<br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Bill dated 27.7.2005<br /> P2. – Rejection letter dated 25.10.2005<br /> List of witnesses for the opp.parties<br /> DW.1. – Sandeep.<br /> List of documents for the opp.parties<br /> D1. – Letter dated 25.10.2005<br /> D2- Photo of Accidental damage on side wall<br />