Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member.
1. Sh.Yogesh Jain has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he purchased a new vehicle from Ford India Motors through its dealer Bhagat Ford, Amritsar on Ist July, 2015 bearing chassis No.MAJAXXMRKAFY50957 and engine No.FY50957 for own personal and domestic use and the complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The model fo the vehicle is Ford Eco Sport (optional) for an amount of Rs.10,42,776/- and the said vehicle is registered with RTO vide RC No.PH-2CS-1233 and the same is under fully warranty by Ford India till 2.7.2018. Said vehicle is insured with New India Insurance Company vide policy No.71050131150100183479. Said vehicle met with an accident on 27th May, 2016 at G.T.Road, Pathankot-Amritsar. The vehicle suffered damage on all four sides after impact with the divider of road due to which it tumbled completely and rolled over to the other side of the road. The driver suffered injury on head, neck and arms. The vehicle has safety features with 6 airbags but at the time of impact only 2 airbags on the right side (inside driver’s seat and one on overhead worked correctly) while the front air bag on the driver side, all the 3 airbags on the left side failed to open. This clearly shows the failure of safety systems and airbags in the vehicle which implies that there are major inherent defects in the vehicle which led to failure of security systems to work properly at the time of accident. The failure of security features of the vehicle at the time of accident could have led to extensive injury to the occupant & a fatal threat to life. The vehicle was towed and delivered to the Ford workshop on the night of 27th May, 2016 between 10 and 11 PM. The company assured the complainant that the vehicle would be repaired within a period of 15 to 20 days and manufacturing defects relating to faulty airbags and security systems will be replaced by the complainant. The company was accordingly bound to rectify the manufacturing defects which lead to mal function of air bags security systems and repair the accidental damage by 15th June, 2016. The vehicle is still in the custody of the said Opposite Party from almost more than 3 months now and the Opposite Party has failed to rectify the inherent manufacturing defects related to vehicle’s security systems. The complainant has been contacting the ford dealership at Amritsar from the last more than 3 months, but the defects in the vehicle could not be resolved despite their best efforts. The vehicle was well within first year full warranty provided by the company and under extended full warranty which is valid till 2.7.2018. The company’s failure to rectify the inherent faults with the vehicle over such a long time has raised many security concerns about non functional life saving systems in this vehicle which can be a threat to life & therefore, this vehicle is unusable and completely undependable. This action by the Opposite Parties have caused lot of mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant besides putting the life of vehicle occupants at risk by selling a faulty vehicle for which the Opposite Parties are liable to pay Rs.5 lacs as compensation. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Party be directed to refund the cost of the vehicle amounting to Rs.10,42,776/- alongwith interest thereon from the date of payment till realization.
b) Opposite Parties be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5 lacs to the complainant.
c) Opposite Parties be directed to pay the adequate cost of the present litigation.
d) Any other relief to which the complainant is found under the law, equity and justice be also allowed.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party No.2 appeared through their counsel, but the written version not filed by Opposite Party No.2 despite availing sufficient opportunities and despite of lapse of more than 45 days under the Act. Hence, Opposite Party No.2 has forfeited its right for filing the written version. But none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, as such, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.11.2016.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C 10 and closed his evidence.
4. At this stage, Sh.Ajay Shanker, Advocate appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 at the stage of evidence. It is well settled law that a party can join the proceedings at any stage. In the interest of justice, Opposite Party No.1 is permitted to join the proceedings at this stage. But no evidence has been produced by both the Opposite Parties despite availing sufficient time, so the case was adjourned for arguments.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and submitted that the complainant purchased a new vehicle from Ford India Motors through its dealer Bhagat Ford, Amritsar on Ist July, 2015 bearing chassis No.MAJAXXMRKAFY50957 and engine No.FY50957 for own personal and domestic use, copy of invoice accounts for Ex.C2, copy of the registration certificate accounts for Ex.C3 and the complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The model of the vehicle is Ford Eco Sport (optional) for an amount of Rs.10,42,776/- and the said vehicle is registered with RTO vide RC No.PH-2CS-1233 and the same is under fully warranty by Ford India till 2.7.2018. Said vehicle is insured with New India Insurance Company vide policy No.71050131150100183479, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C5. Said vehicle met with an accident on 27th May, 2016 at G.T.Road, Pathankot-Amritsar. The vehicle suffered damage on all four sides after impact with the divider of road due to which it tumbled completely and rolled over to the other side of the road. The driver suffered injury on head, neck and arms. The vehicle has safety features with 6 airbags but at the time of impact only 2 airbags on the right side (inside driver’s seat and one on overhead worked correctly) while the front air bag on the driver side, all the 3 airbags on the left side failed to open. This clearly shows the failure of safety systems and airbags in the vehicle which implies that there are major inherent defects in the vehicle which led to failure of security systems to work properly at the time of accident. The failure of security features of the vehicle at the time of accident could have led to extensive injury to the occupant & a fatal threat to life. The vehicle was towed and delivered to the Ford workshop on the night of 27th May, 2016 between 10 and 11 PM. The company assured the complainant that the vehicle would be repaired within a period of 15 to 20 days and manufacturing defects relating to faulty airbags and security systems will be replaced by the complainant. The company was accordingly bound to rectify the manufacturing defects which lead to mal function of air bags security systems and repair the accidental damage by 15th June, 2016. The vehicle is still in the custody of the said Opposite Party from almost more than 3 months now and the Opposite Party has failed to rectify the inherent manufacturing defects related to vehicle’s security systems. The complainant has been contacting the ford dealership at Amritsar from the last more than 3 months, but the defects in the vehicle could not be resolved despite their best efforts. The vehicle was well within first year full warranty provided by the company and under extended full warranty which is valid till 2.7.2018. The company’s failure to rectify the inherent faults with the vehicle over such a long time has raised many security concerns about non functional life saving systems in this vehicle which can be a threat to life & therefore, this vehicle is unusable and completely undependable. On the other hand, both the Opposite Parties have failed to rebut the evidence adduced by the complainant because firstly the written version not filed by the Opposite Parties and secondly no evidence has been adduced despite availing sufficient opportunities. In this way, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record. In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties have no defence to offer or defend the complaint. The complainant has sought for refund of amount of Rs.10,42,776/- alongwith interest thereon from the date of payment till realization besides compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/-.
7. In our considered view, all the Opposite Parties are jointly, severally and co-extensively liable to refund the amount of Rs.10,42,776/- alongwith interest thereon from the date of payment till realization subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of RC of the vehicle in question etc. in favour of the Opposite Parties, by the complainant. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and we award the same accordingly. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. Opposite Parties are granted one month time to comply with the order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing the order until full and final payment. Both the Opposite Parties are held liable jointly, severally & co-extensively to comply with the order. The complaint stands allowed accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 14.03.2017.
