Karnataka

StateCommission

CC/182/2018

Ashwin.A.C. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ford India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ms.Latha Shetty

24 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVISHANKAR                          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

 

Consumer Complaint No. 182/2018

 

Ashwin A.C. S/o. Dr. A.M. Chandra Mouly 007, Pushpanjali Apartments 1st Cross, Chamarajpet Bengaluru 560 018   (By Smt. Latha Shetty) V/s	….Complainant
1.  Ford India Pvt. Ltd.      Block-1B, 1st Floor      RMZ Millenia Business Park      143, Dr. MGR Road,      North Veeranam Salai Perungudi, Chennai 600 096      Rep. by its President/ Managing Director 2.  Cauvery Ford      No.2, Magadi Road      Binnyston Garden      Bangalore 560 023      Rep. by its General Manager   (OP No.1 by Sri.Madukar Sharma OP No.2 by N. Satya Narayana Gupta)	..…Opposite Parties

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Complainant filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice in selling defective vehicle to the complainant and prayed for Rs.75.00 lakhs towards unfair trade practice, Rs.10.00 lakhs towards mental agony and Rs.5.00 lakhs towards medical treatment.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that he purchased Ford Eco Sport 1.5 Petrol Titanium car from OP No.2 on 29.06.2016 which was manufactured by OP No.1.  Subsequently, it was registered before Regional Transport Office, Jayanagar, Bangalore vide No. KA 02 ML 6107 and he was maintaining the vehicle and servicing vehicle with the authorized service station of OP Nos. 1 & 2.  Such being the case on 24.1.2017, the complainant was travelling to his native village Amarapuram in Anantpur District along with his wife, son and parents and they left Bangalore at 10.15 a.m. and reached Hemavathi at 1.20 p.m.  They visited the temple at Hemavathi and left to Amarapuram at 2.45 p.m.   While travelling at about 5 kms. passersby noticed fire and alerted the complainant about the danger which the complainant was not aware at that time.  Immediately he stopped the vehicle and observed fire at the rear end of the vehicle.  Complainant and his family members were able to come out of the car in time.  The complainant had to jump from the vehicle and immediately the entire vehicle caught fire within two minutes.  The complainant suffered fracture to his wrist due to jumping from the vehicle.  Subsequently, the same was informed to the police and the Fire Department investigated and ascertained that the cause of fire was due to electrical fault in the car and submitted document.
3. The complainant further alleged that at the time of purchase of vehicle from OP Nos. 1 & 2 provided two years warranty and the said vehicle caught fire within warranty period.  If the fire was not noticed, entire family would have died due to fire.  Luckily some passersby observed fire and intimated.  Immediately and luckily family members were saved.  Complainant had suffered fracture and took treatment by undergoing surgery in the hospital and spent some amount towards medical expenses.  The fire took place only due to defect in the vehicle.  OP Nos. 1 & 2 sold defective vehicle to the complainant.  Within span of 1 year the vehicle caught fire and entirely burnt.  Hence, alleging unfair trade practice claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.75.00 lakhs, Rs.10.00 lakhs towards mental agony and Rs.5.00 lakhs towards medical treatment along with litigation expenses.
4. After service of notice OP Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version and contended that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and complainant is deliberately trying to distort the facts of the case to suit his own convenience in order to mislead the Forum.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.    Further complaint is bad for non-joinder of Bajaj General Insurance Co. with whom complainant already lodged claim for total loss.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.
5. OP Nos. 1 & 2 further contended that vehicle manufactured by OP No.1 enjoys an excellent reputation in the automobile market in India and its Ford Eco Sport car has received maximum awards from critics, experts and from viewers of various TV channels.  These awards are testimony to the durability, quality and reliability of the cars manufactured by the company.  The vehicle which was sold to the complainant was put to thorough pre-delivery tests of international standards after having gone through various other stringent tests at every stage of manufacture.  It is only subsequent to passing each and every test the car was sold to authorized dealers and in turn authorized dealers are selling vehicle to the customers.  They have obtained certificate issued by ARAI (Automotive Research Association of India) with respect to the quality of the vehicle.
6. The OP further contended that the complainant failed to bring the present complaint within the ambit of Section 2(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act and complainant has failed even to address the critical aspects as outlined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and does not disclosed any manufacturing defect as envisaged in Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act.
7. OP further contended that if there is any manufacturing defect, no vehicle with inherent defect could be used 7,000 kms without any sign of problems and complainant failed to establish in his complaint in particular manufacturing defect persisting in the vehicle and complainant has not produced any expert’s opinion nor convincing report with respect to the manufacturing defect found in the vehicle.  The complainant purchased the vehicle considering the fact that it was fit, proper and road worthy.  There was no manufacturing defect found in the vehicle as per the history report.  The complainant has not complained with respect to the manufacturing defect at the beginning of time.  As and when it was tendered for service, they have provided good service and satisfied with the service and complainant took the vehicle.  Even at the earliest services complainant has not given any complaint with respect to the problems of the vehicle.  The complainant has not shown in his complaint the cause of fire.  Mere production of certificate not establishes the manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The complainant has already claimed a compensation for total loss from the insurance company and has not made said insurance company as party before this Commission and the same claim is pending before insurance company.  When the claim before insurance company is still pending, the complainant cannot make any claim before manufacturer and there is no any liability to be fastened on these OPs.
8. OP further contended that the complainant sought for such an exorbitant claim without any cogent and sufficient proof.  The complaint cannot be entertained based on surmises and conjectures.  Presumably, since the vehicle had been stopped at a temple and also at a roadside shop for snacks, it is probable that some miscreants may have ignited the fire.  There is no certainty about any defect in the car, more so when the car is completely damaged, even for any party to be able to give a plausible assessment as to the cause of the fire.  The complainant has not produced any document to show the vehicle at any time before the said incident has shown any sign of performance related anomaly.  The complainant claimed exorbitant amount of compensation without any basis.  In that ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed and there is no manufacturing defect found in the vehicle and also there is no deficiency in service.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint. 
9. Complainant filed affidavit evidence and marked Ex.C1 to C9.  OP Nos. 1 and 2 filed affidavit evidence and marked one document Ex.R1.
10. Now the points for consideration are:
    1. Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed?
    2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought ?
    3. What is the order?
11. The findings to the above points are:
    1. Affirmative
    2. Partly affirmative
    3. As per final order.
12. Heard.
13. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased one Ford Eco sport 1.5 Petrol Titanium car from OP No. 2 which is manufactured by OP No.1.  After purchase he was using vehicle without any disturbance and he had maintained vehicle by availing services from the authorized service station.  Such being the case on 24.12.217 complainant along with his family members travelled to his native village Amarapuram in Anantpur District.  After visiting temple at Hemavathi, left to Amarapuram.  Immediately some passersby noticed fire on rear side of the vehicle and informed the complainant.  Immediately he alighted his family members and he also jumped out of the car, due to which he suffered fracture to his wrist.  Within few minutes vehicle burnt totally.  Immediately he gave police complaint and police have registered FIR No.58/2017.  Subsequently, complainant took treatment in hospital and spent certain amount for medical treatment.  Thereafter wards he alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle and filed a complaint claiming compensation.  After appearance OPs contended that there is no inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The complainant after purchase has plied vehicle up to 7,000 kms and also contended that during last service the complainant has not complained anything about manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Hence, submits that there is no manufacturing defect found in the vehicle.  If at all any fire took place that might be for the reasons some miscreants have thrown cigarette spark to the vehicle that may be the cause for fire.  Hence, submits compensation claimed by the complainant cannot be entertained.
14. The complainant has produced tax invoice to establish purchase of vehicle marked as Ex.C1, RC to show he is the owner of the vehicle as Ex.C2, tax invoice to show that he had availed service from OP marked as Ex.C3 and photos of the vehicle which was burnt marked as Ex.C4, FIR marked as Ex.C5.  Further complainant has produced Fire Attendance Certificate issued by Andhra Pradesh State Disaster Response and Fire Service Department marked as Ex.C6 which discloses that supposed cause of fire as electrical origin.  Basing on the said certificate complainant alleged manufacturing defect and claimed for compensation along with expenses spent towards medical treatment.  He also produced discharge summary marked as Ex.C8 to show that surgery to left radius and copy of the bill to show he spent certain amount towards medical treatment.  On the other hand OP had produced one document marked as Ex.R1. 
15. It is not in dispute that the vehicle caught fire while driven by the complainant.  We noticed here that the complainant after incident had claimed for total loss from the insurance company which was pleaded in the complaint itself.  Anyhow by virtue of the insurance policy the complainant had claimed for total loss.  The complainant has filed this complaint against OP alleging manufacturing defect which resulted in fire accident.  Basing on the report submitted by Fire Service Department of Andhra Pradesh, we are of the opinion that the said certificate is sufficient to establish that vehicle has some malfunction while plying on the road.  It does not require any expert opinion with respect to the cause of fire accident.  Even no one can assess the cause of fire accident when the car was totally burnt.  Infact, the complainant supposed to claim replacement of the vehicle whereas since he has claimed for total loss by virtue of the policy, he has only claimed compensation as damages.  The OP Nos. 1 and 2 took contention that in previous services complainant has not complained about any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The fire accident would be caused due to some external reason i.e., some miscreants have ignited the fire.  Hence, submits to dismiss the complaint.  The said contention is not acceptable because when we look into the photograph it discloses vehicle caught fire while moving on the road, that is definitely due to some malfunction in the vehicle which resulted in fire in the rear portion of the vehicle.  Luckily some passersby noticed fire and informed to the complainant and life of entire family of the complainant was saved.  It is a clear case of unfair trade practice in selling defective vehicle to the complainant.  The complainant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.75.00 lakhs which is not supported by any documents.  Hence, entire claim cannot be accepted.  Therefore, it is appropriate to award a compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs as payable from the manufacturer/ OP No.1.  Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

         The complaint is allowed in part.  OP No.1/ Manufacturer is directed to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs to the complainant along with litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-.

The OP No.1 is directed to comply the order within two months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of default till realisation.

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

CV*