National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bridgestone India Private Limited vs Liyakathali Kormath & 2 Ors. on 18 April, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 547 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 09/09/2015 in Appeal No. 346/2015 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED BHUTT ROAD, WEST HILL, CHUNGAM, CALICUT-673003 KERALA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. LIYAKATHALI KORMATH & 2 ORS. HAAS VILLA, PANDIKKAD ROAD, MANJERI-2, DISTRICT-MALAPPURAM-676122 KERALA 2. M/S EVM AUTOMOBILES PVT.LTD. NISSAN ACTIVITY CENTER, RAMAPPURAM, PO NEAR PANANGANARA MASQUE, MALAPPURAM KERALA 3. M/S EVM AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. NEAR ELATHUR PANCHAYATH OFFICE, OPP. PUTHOOR TEMPLE, PUTHIYAM GADI, PO PAVANGAD CILICUT KERALA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Wills Mathews, Advocate
Mr. M.P. Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Liyakath Ali, Advocate
Dated : 18 Apr 2016 ORDER
The complainant/respondent purchased a Nissan Micra Car on 30.4.2012. One of the tyres of the said car got burst on 20.5.2012. The said tyre had been manufactured by the petitioner Company. The complainant intimated the bursting of the tyre to the petitioner Co. The tyre was examined by the technician of the petitioner Company who did not find any manufacturing defect in it. The complainant, however, was not satisfied with the response he received from the petitioner Co. and, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties including the petitioner Company on the ground that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre which got burst.
2. The District Forum vide its order dated 20.2.1015 directed the OPs in the complaint including the petitioner Company to refund Rs.4,000/- that being the market value of the tyre to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the said order, the petitioner Company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 9.9.2015, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner Company. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
3. A perusal of the report from the Rubber Research Institute of India, under the aegis of Rubber Board, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt. of India would show that on inspection of the burst tyre, no manufacturing defect was found. It was opined by the aforesaid Institute that the tyre appeared to have been cut by sharp objects while driving the vehicle on a rough terrain. It was also stated that it could not categorically be stated to be a manufacturing defect. The report by the officials of the petitioner Company dated 22.5.2012 shows that there was sidewall cut penetration by some sharp external object and no manufacturing defect in the tyre was found.
4. The onus was on the complainant to prove that the tyre which had got burst suffered from a manufacturing defect. No such evidence, however, was led by him. There cannot be any presumption of a manufacturing defect merely because of the tyre having got burst within one month of the purchase of the vehicle. In a given situation, even a new tyre may get burst if it hit by a sharp object on its side. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the tyre which had got burst, suffered from a manufacturing defect. The impugned orders are therefore, set aside. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost. It is, however, noted that a sum of Rs.1,000/- has already been paid to the complainant, towards conveyance charges, in terms of the directions given by the Commission.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER