Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/170

Dr. Ravi Shekhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Model Fuels Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Ojha

15 Dec 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-20-12-2017

Date of final hearing-15-12-2022

 Date of Order-15-12-2022

Case No. 170/2017

     Dr. Ravi Shekhar S/o- Sri Bal Rup Das

     R/o- Sector 3/B, Qtr. No- 368, P.O.&P.S- Bokaro Steel City

Vs.

1. Branch Manager, Model Fuel Pvt. Ltd.

Deali Bazar, Govindpur, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand

2. Chief Executive Officer Mahindra&Mahindra Limited,

      Mahindra Towers, Dr. G.M. Bhosale Marg, Worli, Mumbai

    3.  Manager, Model Fuel Pvt. Ltd. (Dealer)

          Near Toll Plaza, Balidih, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, 827014

Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

        Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

          

      PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgment-

1. Complainant’s case in short is that he is a Doctor by profession and on 31.05.2016  he purchased Mahindra SUV 500 having registration No. JH-09-AD-3826 from O.P. No.1 (Dealer) and O.P. No.2 is the manufacturer of said vehicle. Further case is that on 01.09.2016 while complainant was coming from Patna to Bokaro and reached near Tupkadih at about 01:30P.M. then vehicle met with major accident and at that time speed of the vehicle was 60 K.M./hour but inspite of wearing sheet belt air bags did not opened, hence complainant sustained injuries for which he was admitted in BGH, Bokaro, where he was under treatment for about 35 days, further he could not attend his duties for another 25 days. Vehicle was repaired at authorized workshop for which bill amount of Rs. 3,07,000/- was  raised but Insurance co. only paid Rs. 2,47,000/- and rest of Rs. 60,000/- was paid by the complainant. Therefore, complainant sustained loss of earning for Rs. 3,00,000/- and paid Rs. 60,000/- repair cost of the vehicle which was not paid by the Insurance Co. hence he served legal notice to O.Ps. having no impact, thereafter this case has been filed with prayer to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 3,60,000/- as mentioned above and Rs. 25,000/- compensation and Rs. 10,000/- litigation cost.
2. W.S. has been filed by O.P. No. 1 & 3 mentioning therein that they are neither manufacturer nor insurer co. hence for non function of air bags or less payment of insurance amount they cannot be held liable. Further reply is that whatever the bill was raised it has been paid to these O.Ps. hence they are having no concerned about the person who paid it.  Hence it is prayed to dismiss the case against these O.Ps.
3.  O.P. No.2 ( the manufacturer) has filed the W.S. mentioning therein that there is no privity of contract between this O.P. and complainant. Further reply is that this case has been filed on misconceived and misleading grounds. Further reply is that from the date of purchase till the date of accident there was no complain of malfunctioning of the vehicle concerned hence there was no manufacturing defect. As per warranty condition damage due to accident is not covered under warranty. There is no evidence that at the time of accident complainant has fastened the sheet belt and accident has occurred due to non deployment of the air bags. Insurance co. has not been made party of this case for realization of Rs. 60,000/-. Further reply is that so far as the non deployment of air bags is concerned it is clear that all things have been mentioned in manual provided to the customer hence complainant cannot say that he was not aware about it. The deployment of air bags depends upon the severity and direction of the frontal collision and it will deployed only on use of sheet belt to reduce the risk of injury to head or chest, hence it is prayed to dismiss the case.
4. Now point for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get relief or not?
5.  On careful perusal of the case record it appears that only photo copy of reply of the O.P. No.2 dt. 17.10.2017 given on legal notice of the complainant and photo copy of legal notice have been filed on behalf of complainant and except it there is no other evidence on behalf of the complainant. In this way complainant has failed to prove by any evidence that there was any injury to him due to alleged accident. No any evidence to prove that what was per day income of the complainant and how much loss was caused to him by such accident. Insurance co. about whom it is said that Rs. 60,000/- has not been paid to the complainant has not been made party to the case. The reply of legal notice given by the manufacturer (O.P. No.2) is very much clear that deployment of air bags was not possible in such case. However, there is no any evidence of any technical expert to show that due to manufacturing defect air bags were not opened. There is no evidence to prove that user manual was not provided to the complainant or if it was provided then it was not containing about deployment of air bags. In this way it is very much clear that complainant has not proved his case by any cogent evidence.
6. In light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant has not proved his case for grant of relief as prayed. Accordingly this point is being decided against the complainant.
7.  In the result case is dismissed on contest on cost.

 

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

                                                                                     

         

    (B.P.L Das)

   Sr. Member