STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | : | 38 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 01.03.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 03.03.2017 |
Hyundai Motor India Ltd., having its office at 5th Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building) Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi.
…Appellant
V e r s u s
1. Baljeet Singh S/o Gurdev Singh R/o V.P.O. Kalour, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.
2. K.L.G. Hyundai, Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 181/3, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh 160002..
...Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 12.01.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.801/2015..
Argued by: Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has filed this appeal against order dated 12.1.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), allowing a complaint filed by respondent No.1/ complainant.
2. As per admitted facts on record, the complainant purchased a car manufactured by the appellant, on 4.12.2014. His car met with an accident on 5.11.2015, which resulted into damage to the front right side portion of the car. Minor injuries were suffered by the son of the complainant, who was his co-passenger. It was his grievance that the airbags failed to react in time, and on account of non-deployment of airbags, injuries were suffered by his son. It was alleged by the complainant that there was a manufacturing defect in the said car. Despite request made, when car was not replaced with a new one, it was got repaired against payment. Alleging deficiency in providing service, a consumer complaint was filed.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1. An attempt was made to avoid its liability by stating that the airbags were to deploy when there was a severe frontal or side impact at a speed. It was further stated that in case of the accident in dispute, all the sensors were found to be intact and not damaged. Supplemental Restraint System Control Module (SRSCM) which records crash, had not recorded any crash. There was no major damage on the front side and the damage was only to the right hand side fender.
To the same effect, was the reply filed by OP No.2.
4. Both parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint on 12.1.2017, granting following relief to the respondent/complainant ;
(i) Let Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, jointly and severally, pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
(ii) To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.
Amount awarded was ordered to be paid within a timeframe manner, failing which, it will to entail penal interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till payment is made. Hence, this appeal.
5. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that accidental impact was only on one side of the car and as per instructions contained in the User Manual, in the event of severe collision, airbags were only to be deployed. We have seen the file of the Forum which is available with us. The photographs (C-2) available on record, clearly depict that it was a severe accident. The car had struck against a tree from its front side causing damage to the right hand frontal wheel. Damage caused also appears to be severe. Chassis of the car might have been effected. If on such an impact, airbag sensors will not act, then when. It is on record that due to accident, minor injury was caused to the son of the complainant- a co-passenger. Sensors appear to be placed where the car had struck against the tree i.e next to the right side front wheel. From the very fact that sensors were intact and failed to act, it can safely be said that there was some manufacturing defect in the car.
The Forum, when granting relief to the complainant, has observed as under :
“However, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the car in question did suffer from manufacturing defect and the air bags did not deploy when the accident took place. The complainant had incurred huge expenses for purchasing the car in question simply on account of the fact that the life of the occupant may be saved, in case some accident takes place. But, since the air bags did not deploy at the time of accident, the son of the complainant sustained injuries in the accident. Simply saying that the impact of the accident in question was more than 30º impact angle and the collision was not frontal and, therefore, the air bags did not deploy is not sustainable. In analogous set of facts before the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.1014 of 2016 titled as Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Vs. Leela Shu & Anr., decided on 25.4.2016, the aforesaid contentions of dealer and manufacturer were turned down by Hon’ble National Commission. The District Forum below had allowed the complaint filed by the complainant directing OPs 1 and 2, either jointly or severally, to pay Rs.8,95,000/- to the complainant on account of mental pain and agony alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. The Hon’ble State Commission partly allowed the appeal and the OPs were directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- instead of Rs.8,95,000/-. OP-1 went in revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission which dismissed the revision petition and further imposed costs in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- out of which Rs.75,000/- were directed to be paid to the complainant while Rs.25,000/- were ordered to be deposited in Consumer Legal Aid Account of the Commission through demand draft within 90 days from the date of the order. Since both the pleas taken by OPs 1 & 2 were rejected in analogous set of facts by the Hon’ble National Commission, therefore, this Forum is also constrained to hold that the defence pleas taken by the OPs were without any merit and, as such, were not sustainable at law.”
6. By placing reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.1014 of 2016 titled as Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Vs Leela Shu & Anr. contention of OP that sensors failed to act in deploying airbags at the time of the accident as the collision was not frontal, was rejected. As referred to above, we are satisfied that it was front side of the vehicle which was damaged in the accident. In that event, had there been no defect, sensors would have deployed the airbags. In view of the above, relief granted is perfectly justified.
7. Further contention of Counsel for the appellant is that for repairs done to the car, the complainant had already received sufficient amount from the Insurance Company, and as such, the order of the Forum to grant relief is liable to be set aside. To support above said contention, reliance has been placed upon Revision Petition No.1588 of 2006 titled as M/s A.B.Motors Private Ltd. Vs M/s Admiral Impex Pvt. Ltd. & another decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 15.4.2010. In that case, a vehicle was damaged in an accident, which was put under repair. Some part of the claim raised by the owner/consumer was paid by the insurance company and qua rest of the amount spent on repair, claim was raised before the Forum. In that event, the National Commission said that it was not justified. In the present case, facts are altogether different. Compensation granted was for deficiency in providing service and noting that there was some manufacturing defect in the car due to which Sensor system and airbags did not function. We have given specific finding that front side of the car was damaged in the accident and sensors should have been acted in deploying the airbags. Thus, no case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
9 Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
10. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
03.03.2017
Js
