DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER

1.       These two appeals have been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) against the impugned Order dated 08.06.2016 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in C.C. no. 351 of 2013 whereby the complaint of the complainant was disposed of directing the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental agony and tension etc. to the complainant.

2.       Mr. Jagdev Singh, learned counsel appears for Honda Cars India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘manufacturer’).

Mr. Shyam D. Nandan, learned counsel appears for Shaman Cars India Pvt. Ltd. and Arya Honda (hereinafter referred to as the ‘dealer’ and ‘authorized service centre’, respectively).

Mr. Dhrubajit Saikia, learned proxy counsel appears for the complainant.

3.       We have heard the learned counsel present and have perused the record including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 08.06.2016 and the memorandum of appeal.

4.       The facts, in nutshell, are that in May 2012 the complainant, who is a senior consultant, Brain and Spine Surgeon, specialized in Brain Haemorrhage and stroke, purchased a car (Honda City) from the manufacturer through dealer and took the delivery of the same on 07.06.2012. The complainant had at all times diligently and regularly taken the said car for servicing on appointed dates to the authorized service centre. In April 2013, the car was serviced and certified as fit to be driven. It is alleged that on 16.06.2013, when the complainant was going to the Hospital by self driving, he applied brakes to stop the car at Bandara – Worli sea link for payment of toll tax upon which the car’s steering wheel automatically turned towards the right hand and suddenly got jammed, started running towards the right side and rammed into the road divider and got damaged. It is further alleged that when the vehicle was sent for service earlier, it was pointed out that the car had problem with the brakes. It is furthermore alleged that as technical problem was not attended, he met with the car accident. The complainant informed the manufacturer of the car about the said incident. The manufacturer in response sent an e-mail regretting for the unfortunate accident and assured of offering best products and services at all times to the complainant.

5.       The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned Order dated 08.06.2016 disposed of the complaint by observing “there was insurance claim in respect of the accident occurred in respect of the Car and sum of Rs. 2,24,020/- was received by the complainant and vehicle was repaired to his satisfaction”; “Considering the period that lapsed after the date of purchase of the car and bearing in mind three free services were already done, there is no serious complaints of major technical fault as urged by the complainant” and “surgeon driving his own vehicle to attend emergency operations must have suffered mental agony and strain as a result of the accident” and directed the opposite parties to jointly severally pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension etc. to the complainant within 45 days, failing which the interest @9% shall be paid by the opponents along with cost of Rs. 25,000/-.

6.       Aggrieved by the said Order of the State Commission, the manufacturer and the dealer & authorized service centre have filed the instant appeals before this Commission.

7.       Learned counsel for the manufacturer submits that the vehicle in question has no manufacturing defect and during investigation carried out by the trained technicians of the appellant, all related components including braking system of the car were found to be working properly and in order. He further submits that air bag deployment system was thoroughly checked and the same was found to be functioning properly and the Airbag deployment mechanism / logics are so designed to deploy them in case of extreme collisions, which incudes offset collision with an oncoming vehicle and impact with a stationery obstacles. He further submits that the remarks made in the tax invoice date 12.05.2013 i.e. “check front brake pads for thickness and rear brake adjuster and lubricant pins (silicon Grease)” is a description, which denotes that the authorized service centre checked the same. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the National Commission in catena of judgments had also held that where the subject matter of a complaint refers to technicalities such as any allegation towards a manufacturing defect in the car, it is mandatory for the courts to obtain technical report and in the absence of the same, no relief shall be granted. In the present matter, the technical report was not called and the State Commission has not found any deficiency on the part of the manufacturer and passed his judgment only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, therefore, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8.       Learned counsel for the ‘dealer’ and the’ authorized service centre’ submits that the authorized service centre has checked the front brake pads for thickness, rear brake adjuster and lubricant pins (silicon Grease) in the vehicle while the vehicle came for service and there was no fault in the front brake pads as also there is no lapse in servicing the vehicle.

9.       Learned proxy counsel for the complainant submits that vehicle in question has manufacturing defect and air bag deployment system was not working properly as the Airbags did not open when the said car hit the road divider twice. He further submits that the complainant had made similar complaint i.e. the steering wheel and breaks got jammed, three months before the incident at the time of service of the car but the said complaint was not rectified. He further submits that the air-bags did not open when the said car hit the road divider twice.

10.     As far as the manufacturing defect is concerned, no expert report or any other document has been placed on record to prove that the car had manufacturing defect and only on the bare statement, it cannot be said that the vehicle had manufacturing defect. At the time of passing of the State Commission’s Order, the same car was being driven by the complainant. As regards the point of opening of airbag at the time of accident is concerned, it is admitted by the complainant that the speed of the vehicle at the time of accident is about 10 – 15 kms. per hour and the airbag deployment mechanism / logics are designed to deploy them in case of extreme collisions, which includes offset collision with an oncoming vehicle and impact of stationary obstacle and if the rate of deceleration is high enough, the control unit will instantly inflate the driver’s and front airbags. Therefore, it can be said that the rate of deceleration is not so high which is required to inflate the driver’s and front airbags. In the investigation report filed by the dealer and the authorized service centre dated 17.06.2013, it has been observed by the investigator that “FR/RH Impact sensor is intact and no damages observed. However, the mount area is bit deformed due to impact”; Driver side connections and couplers are in good condition. No loose connection observed"; “Passenger side airbags connections and couplers are in good condition. No loose connection observed.” “SRS control module connections and couplers are in good condition. No loose connection observed”; “FR both brake are in good condition” “Good quality of brake fluid is present in reservoir. “No brake fluid leakage in ABS module pipes joints”; “Indicates no brake fluid leakage”; “brake caliper in good condition.” and no leakage in w/cylinders. Rear brake system is intact. From a perusal of this investigation report, it is apparent that the brakes of the vehicle are in good condition and working properly. It is noted that in the tax invoice dated 21.05.2013, the odometer of the vehicle shows the reading as 21001 kms. and at the time of investigation i.e. on 17.06.2013, the reading is 22570 kms. and during the said period i.e. about 25 days, the vehicle had run about 1569 kms. and the complainant had not made any complaint regarding any kind of problem in the braking system.

It is seen from the above that the State Commission in its Order has not given any definitive finding of deficiency in service on the part of either of the appellants and has not taken into consideration the technical aspects in respect of airbags and brakes etc. In view of the same, the Order of the State Commission is liable to be set aside.

11.     In view of the above, the appeals filed by the manufacturer and the dealer & authorised service centre are allowed and the Order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the State Commission is set aside.