Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/113/2015

Hyundai Motor India Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurpreet Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Gupta, Amit Gupta, Adv.

20 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

First Appeal No.	:	113 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	27.5.2015
Date of Decision		20.07.2015

Hyundai Motors India Ltd., Plot No. H1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperunbudar Taluk,  Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602117 through its authorized representative.

 ……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1. Gurpreet Singh s/o Sh.Avtar Singh Sandhu, R/o H.No.718, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

2. KLG Hyundai, Ashwani Automobiles Private Limited, through its concerned Manager, 181/3-B, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002.

              ....Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:Sh. Amit Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

                 Sh. Karan Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1

                 Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

      This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.4.2015 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1) and directed the Opposite Parties, as under:-

“12.   For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed against Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under :-

[a]  To pay Rs.2.00 lac to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment;  

[b] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

13.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.”

2.         The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had purchased one Hyundai Verna Fluidic car from Opposite Party No.2 on 28.5.2013 and got the same registered with the Registering & Licensing Authority, Chandigarh vide Regn.No.CH-01-AT-8523 (Annexure C-1). It was stated that the said car was fitted with six airbags (2 in front and 4 curtain side in all the doors). It was further stated that unfortunately, on 6.4.2014, at around 2.00 a.m. while the complainant was going to McDonalds Restaurant at Zirakpur, in order to save a motorcycle, he took the car on unmetalled road, due to which, it (car) got overturned and was extensively damaged and DDR (Annexure C-5) was lodged. It was further stated that the complainant was saved due to seat belt, but he received injuries in spine, right shoulder, right ankle, elbow joint, multiple bruises and abrasions on both arms & hands as per the Medical Reports (Annexure C-6). It was further stated that despite heavy damage to the car as was apparent from the Photographs (Annexure C-7 colly.), none of the airbags of the car opened, which in turn, was a serious threat to life of the complainant. It was further stated that the car was towed to the Service Station of Opposite Party No.2, for accidental repairs. It was further stated that while delivering the car, the complainant made a specific complaint about non-deployment of the airbags. However, Opposite Party No.2, in order to save its liability, vide letter dated 30.4.2014 (Annexure C-8), rejected the complaint of the complainant for non-deployment of airbags, citing various reasons mentioned in the letter itself, which included no head on collision, no side impact observed, no crash information recorded in SRSCM, SRS control module & connector found OK and Front impact sensors found OK etc. It was further stated that the accident was so dreadful that the damage also reached the seats of the car and the same (car seats) were also got changed. It was further stated that non-deployment of airbags amounted to manufacturing defect in the car. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.

3.         When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to pay an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- as compensation/damages for selling a defective car or in the alternative, to replace the defective car; pay Rs.8 lacs as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.         Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that for deployment of airbag, certain pre-determined conditions were required and SRS airbag deployment depended upon a number of set conditions built into the logic of the control unit explained in detail in Owner’s Manual and Service Booklet supplied to the owner of the vehicle. It was further stated that as per the information received from Opposite Party No.2, when the vehicle was brought for investigation after the alleged accident, the same was inspected by its Technical Staff and SRS Control Module and Sensors were found OK and it was concluded that sufficient impact to deploy the air bags, was not recorded in the Control Module, which justified the air bags non-deployment. It was denied that the accident was of such a magnitude as to trigger the deployment of airbags, as alleged. It was also denied that non-deployment of airbags was due to manufacturing defect. It was further stated that in its letter dated 30.4.2014, Opposite Party No.2, had given complete details of the reason of non-deployment of all airbags. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.         Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, stated that the airbags were connected to sensors located at different locations in the vehicle and they deploy only under certain conditions duly mentioned in the Owner’s Manual. It was further stated that the sensors were found to be intact and even the SRSCM system did not record that the crash was having any such event. It was further stated that the deployment of airbags depended upon various factors. It was further stated that the intensity of impact on front and side was important for deployment of the airbags. It was further stated that, in the present case, the vehicle overturned while it was on the unmetalled passage and the impact was on the roof of the vehicle. It was further stated that the vehicle neither collided with any other vehicle from front or from any side nor it collided with any stationary object at a high speed, and, therefore, the question of deployment of airbags did not arise at all. Opposite Party No.2 thoroughly investigated the matter and conveyed its observations to the complainant vide its letter dated 30.4.2014. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.         The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.         After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint against Opposite Parties, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order. 

8.         Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

9.         We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

10.       The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 submitted that respondent No.1/complainant failed to produce any expert report regarding manufacturing defect in the car, in question and regarding non-functioning of the airbags. He further submitted that the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 had placed, on record, report of Sh. Rama Rana, Customer Care Manager as Annexure – 1, which remained unrebutted by respondent No.1/complainant. He further submitted that respondent No.1/complainant at the best suffered injuries, which were nothing but only bruises , which fact was evident from the alleged certificate of Dr. Munish Chhabra at Page 25 of the file. He further submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that there was no defect with the airbag system and respondent No.1/complainant failed to provide any expert evidence/opinion in support of his contention that the airbags were not deployed due to the defect in the car airbag system. He further submitted that respondent No.1/complainant brought the vehicle for accidental repairs on 23.1.2014, 06.02.2014 and 07.04.2014. He further submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate the law laid down by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in M/s A.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Admiral Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Revision Petition No.1588 of 2006, in which it was held that once the relief is obtained from the Insurance Company, granting of additional relief will amount to unjust enrichment. He further submitted that the District Forum erred in recording that the vehicle, in question, suffered from inherent manufacturing defect without any evidence to that effect.

11.       The Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant submitted that there was certainly manufacturing defect in the airbag system of the vehicle, in question, due to which, the airbags were not deployed at the time of the accident. He further submitted that the District Forum, thus, holding the Opposite Parties, deficient in rendering service, righty allowed the complaint partly, after appreciating the law and evidence, on record and, as such, the order passed by it, is liable to be upheld.

12.       The core question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, leading to non-deployment of the air bags. When respondent No.1/complainant while trying to save a motorcycle, took the car on unmetalled road,  it (car) got overturned and was damaged. Respondent No.1/complainant claims to have suffered multiple injuries in spine, right shoulder, right ankle, elbow joint, multiple bruises and abrasions on both arms and hands as per the medical report (Annexure C-6). The appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has not produced any expert evidence or report of a mechanical engineer that over-turning of the car did not have any impact on the sensors on account of which, the air bags did not deploy. It has relied upon its letter dated 30.04.2014 (Annexure C-8) signed by Rakesh Gautam, General Manager and Rama Rana, Customer Care Manager. No document to prove that these persons were technically qualified was brought on record. The appellant/Opposite Party No.1 also placed reliance on Annexure -2, which suggest that “….In other words, just because your vehicle is damaged and even if it is totally unusable, don’t be surprised that the air bags did not inflate……Front air bags are designed to inflate in a frontal collision depending on the intensity, speed or angles of impact of the front collision……Side impact and curtain air bags are designed to inflate when an impact is detected by side collision sensors, depending on the strength, speed or angles of impact resulting from a side impact collision……..Side impact and curtain air bags are designed to inflate only in side impact collisions, but they may inflate in other collisions if the side impact sensors detect a sufficient impact……. However, side impact and curtain air bags may inflate when the vehicle is rolled over by a side impact collision, if the vehicle is equipped with side impact air bags and curtain air bags…..” The accident took place on 6.4.2014 and as per Annexure R-2/1, produced in evidence by Opposite Party No.2 itself, bill in the sum of Rs.4,11,216/- was raised on account of accidental repairs on 7.4.2014. The amount of bill itself establishes that the vehicle was extensively damaged and, therefore, it becomes unbelievable that there was no impact on the sensors leading to non-deployment of the air bags. Further the photographs, produced by respondent No.1/complainant, show that the manner in which the vehicle was damaged, it cannot be said that the over-turning of the car did not have any impact on the sensors. Respondent No.1/complainant had purchased an expensive luxury car having six air bags by spending huge amount under the belief that it will provide him and his family members/friends adequate and extra safety but despite such a dangerous accident, the airbags did not deploy. Undoubtedly, respondent No.1/complainant paid extra amount for the vehicle with the facility of six airbags, which were not deployed when the vehicle overturned in an accident. It is not the case of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 that the safety features, on which it relied upon by producing the same in evidence as Annexure-2, were explained to respondent No.1/complainant at the time of purchase of the car.

13.       No doubt, Respondent No.1/complainant sustained injuries as is evident from Annexures C-6 and C-7. As per the certificate issued by Dr. Munish Chhabra of Chabra Maternity & Health Care Centre, #4855, New Sunny Enclave, Ext.-8, Sector 125, Greater Mohali, respondent No.1/complainant came to his centre on 6^th April, 2014 because of an accident, where he was given first aid and advised consultation by a Physiotherapist and an Orthopaedician. Subsequently, respondent No.1/complainant consulted Dr. Surinder Singh, Consultant, Physiotherapist & Fitness Expert, Amar Hospital, Sector 70 SAS Nagar, Mohali/Chhabra Hospital, Sector 125, New Sunny Enclave, Greater Mohali, who advised him massage/ice massage and ultrasonic therapy besides Tab. Lyser D. From the medical record aforesaid, it can also be made out that respondent No.1/complainant was not hospitalized. He (respondent No.1/complainant), however, did not adduce any evidence, as to the quantum of amount, which he incurred on his treatment.

14.       Undoubtedly, due to non-deployment of airbags, respondent No.1/complainant suffered injuries and his hopes regarding safety features also got dashed to the ground when the airbags did not get deployed. The Opposite Parties were, thus, deficient in rendering service and indulged into unfair trade practice. Mental agony and physical harassment was also caused to respondent No.1/complainant at the hands of the Opposite Parties. He is entitled to compensation. In our considered opinion, compensation granted by the District Forum, in the sum of Rs.2 Lacs, is exaggerated. Compensation in the sum of Rs.75,000/- shall be just and adequate, to meet the ends of justice. To this extent, the impugned order passed by the District Forum needs to be modified. However, the cost of litigation awarded by the District Forum in the sum of Rs.10,000/- is adequate.

15.       In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly accepted with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified and the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 alongwith respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

1. pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony and physical harassment, caused to respondent No.1/complainant, instead of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the District Forum, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
2. pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.1/complainant, towards costs of litigation, as awarded by the District Forum, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
3. In case the amounts mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), above are not paid by the Opposite Parties, within the stipulated period, then the amount mentioned in Clause (i) above shall be payable by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 & respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 alongwith interest @12% per annum, from the date of institution of the complaint till actual payment, besides payment of cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.

16.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.       The file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced.

July 20, 2015

 

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

Ad