State Commission vide by the impugned order has directed the Appellant to replace the three rims of the vehicle which had been bent. State Commission had also awarded a sum of Rs. 1 Lac by way of compensation. Counsel for the Appellant states that the three bent rims have already been replaced. After taking instructions from his client Counsel for the Appellant states that he has no objection to the payment of Rs. 1 Lac to the Respondent which have been awarded by way of compensation. However, he contends that the observations made by the State Commission in para 8.8. of its order which reads as under be deleted being unwarranted and unsubstantiated:- .8 It is common knowledge that a tyre burst can occur under various circumstances, including road conditions, the speed of the vehicle, nature of driving and tyre conditions, as contended by Bavaria Motors. In the case at hand, two tyres burst at two different places and they were replaced by BMWs respective dealers at Chembur and Verna. As rightly pointed out on behalf of the complainant, BMW ought to have the technology and resources to find out why two tyres, one almost new, and the other new, had burst. In the absence of any technical opinion forthcoming, the only irresistible conclusion is that the tyres burst on both the occasions, because they were defective and for no other reason. Res ipsa loquitur, we could say. Further inference is that three of the alloy wheels got bends because of driving for considerable distance with one deflated or burst tyre. The claims made that run flat tyre can run for 80 km at 80 kmph are proved to be hollow. We find substance in this submission. In the given facts and circumstances of the case the observations made by the State Commission in para 8.8 are not warranted and consequently ordered to be set aside and deleted. Rest of the appeal is, however, dismissed as not pressed for.