K.Pramod Kumar Rai,
Kajemar House,
KedambadyVillage,
Post Kedambady,
Via Aryapu-Puttur,
Dakshina Kannada District – 574 210.
…….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate: Sri.K.B. Arasa).

VERSUS

M/s.Bridge Stone India Pvt. Ltd.,
No.12 CVRBuilding,
Next to Lalbagh,
Double Road Gate,
Hosur Road,
Bangalore – 560 027. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate: Sri.S.P. Chengappa).


***************


ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT;

1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service and defect in goods against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
It s submitted that, the Complainant purchased a Honda City Car Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-20-N-2166 which was fitted with bridge store tyre 175/65 R16CED2806S322. It is alleged that the tyre burst on 25.02.2007 within 3 months of its usage and was sent to the authorized agent of the Opposite Party for replacement on the same day. Though the Opposite Party initially agreed to replace the same, on the next day gave an endorsement dated 26.2.2007 stating that it was not a manufacturing defect and there was nail penetration. As there was no such nail penetration the Complainant wrote letter to the Opposite Party, the said letter retuned unserved and thereafter on 20.4.2007 the letter was served but not replied and contended that the tyre supplied by the Opposite Party suffering from manufacturing defect and is of poor quality and hence the above complaint is filed before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Party to replace the tyre and to pay damages and cost of the complaint of Rs.25,000/-.

2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD.
Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version denied the manufacturing defect. It is submitted that on proper inspection of the tyres and also as per the report of the Surveyor it was found that while driving the above said vehicle there was nail penetration and due to the impact the tyre got burst and the said matter was brought to the notice of the Complainant and contended that there is no manufacturing defect and it cannot be replaced and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
(i)Whether the Complainant proves that the tyre fitted to the car suffering from manufacturing defect and is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

(ii)If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?






(i)What order?

4. In support of the complaint, Sri.K.Pramod Kumar Rai (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C8 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.Bilal Abdulla (RW1), Assistant Manager Technical Service and G.P.A. holder of the Managing Director of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. The Complainant produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows: Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons


5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the Complainant purchased a Honda City Car bearing registration No.KA-20-N-2166 from the dealer at Mangalore registered on 6.11.2006.
The allegation of the Complainant is that, on 25.2.2007 i.e., within 3 months of its usage the tyres fixed to the above said car got burst and thereafter he has taken the tyres to M/s.Wheel Care Attavar, Mangalore authorized branch of the Opposite Party and they agreed to replace the tyre as it was a manufacturing defect and subsequently Complainant received an endorsement dated 26.2.2007 stating that it was not a manufacturing defect and there was a nail penetration. The Complainant contended that there was no nail penetration as stated by the Complainant but it is a manufacturing defect the tyre of the vehicle got burst.
In the instant case, both the parties admitted that the vehicle in question was purchased from the dealer of the Opposite Party and the said car was fitted with bridge stone type tyre and the said tyre was got burst on 25.2.2007.
Now the point for consideration is that whether the said tyre got burst is it due to manufacturing defect or nail penetration? As far as the Opposite Party is concerned, they have specifically submitted that they have taken a survey and it was found that while driving the above said vehicle there was a nail penetration and due to the impact tyres got burst and sent the report to the Complainant on 26.2.2007 as per Ex C2. The same has been denied by the Complainant and stated that it is not a nail penetration but it is a manufacturing defect. When it is alleged that it is a manufacturing defect then the entire burden lies upon the Complainant to prove before the FORA that the tyre fitted to the vehicle has a manufacturing defect.
Section 13 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act is very clear that where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods. In the present case, there is no proper analysis or test of the goods or any findings of the expert to show before the FORA that the tyre fixed to the car suffering from manufacturing defect. The Complainant ought to have referred the matter to an independent expert to get the analysis/expert report to satisfy the Forum that the tyres fitted to the car suffering from manufacturing defect. But in the instant case, the Complainant failed to take any steps. In the absence of any expert opinion with regard to the manufacturing defect it is very difficult to consider the same on guesswork.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that since there is no expert opinion to show that the tyre fitted to the car has manufacturing defect. We are declined to consider the grievances of the Complainant that the goods/tyres supplied by the Opposite Party are defective. On the other hand, immediately i.e., on 26.2.2007 the Opposite Party sent a report stating that there was a nail penetration is to be considered.
In view of the above said reasons, we hold that the Complainant is miserably failed to prove the manufacturing defect. Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.

6. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.