Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/650/2022

Ms. Bhawna Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Honda Cars India Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Goyal

08 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/650/2022
Date of Institution	:	01/07/2022
Date of Decision	:	08/08/2024

 

Ms.Bhawna Arora W/o Dhiraj Arora R/o 333, Sector-32, Chandigarh.

Complainant

VERSUS

 

1. Honda Cars India Limited, through its Chairman/ Managing Director, 1302-1306, Kesar Solitaire, Plot No.5, Sector 19, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai-400705.

 

2. Harmony Honda, Joshi Automotives Pvt. Ltd. through its Chairman/Managing Director, Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh-160002.

...Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Atul Goyal, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Ashish Chauhan, alongwith Sh.Gursher Singh Bhandal, Advocates for OP No.1.
	:	Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased a Honda City Car, from OP No.2 who is authorized dealer of OP No.1 dated 25.04.2017 (Annexure C-1). On 31.05.2022 at 11:15 a.m. the complainant was driving the car at Zirakpur-Patiala Highway. Suddenly the another car moving ahead stopped in between and the complainant also applied the brakes to stop her car and also somehow managed to stop the car, but the third car coming from behind hit the car of the complainant from behind and the complainant resultantly crashed into the car ahead resulting into extensive damage from both ends (Annexure C-2). It was a head on collision and the front part of the car totally got crushed and in such a serious head on collision, it was expected that the air bags of the car will deploy to save the complainant, but unfortunately the air bags of the car did not deploy resulting in serious injury on the right shoulder of the complainant. The husband of the complainant immediately contacted the OP No.1 through e-mail dated 31.05.2022 and informed them about the occurrence of the accident and the non deployment of the air bags. The OP No.1 failed to give any cogent reason for the non deployment of the air bags in the present circumstances of the case i.e. a car who had banged into the front car resulting into crushing of the front side of the car (Annexure C-5). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the allegation of non-operation of airbags is against the facts of this case. The facts are that the vehicle in question was severely hit from behind and due to the force and impact/hit (frontal collision) does not qualify for the deployment of airbags. In other words, the airbags of the vehicle are supposed to inflate only in cases of moderate to severe collisions, which was not present in the instant case. Further, no proof was produced on record or even stated in the complaint that the complainant was wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. The complainant failed to discharge the onus and failed to produce any cogent, convincing and fathom/expert evidence to prove non-functioning of the airbag system of vehicle due to any defect/abnormality. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the primary restraint system in the car is a seat belt, which help to restrain movement of occupant body in the event of crash. Seat belts are the single most effective safety device because they keep the occupant connected to vehicle So that he/she can take advantage of any built in safety features. They also keep the occupant from being thrown out of the vehicle against the inside of the vehicle, against other passengers, or out of vehicle. When worn properly, seat belts keep occupant body properly positioned in a crash so that he/she can make full advantage of the additional protection provided by the airbags. It is further stated that the airbags are part of the 'Supplemental Restraint System'. In case the system detects a moderate to severe frontal collision, it activates the airbags which rapidly deploy so as to prevent major injuries to the occupants. The SRP deploys based on the rate of deceleration during the impact. The SRP (airbag) is required to come into effect only when the impact of the collision and the resultant deceleration is large enough such that the primary restraining system of the seat belts would be ineffective. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.2.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     The main grievance of the complainant is that during the accident of her vehicle, the airbags were not deployed and caused serious injury on her right shoulder.
8.     The version of the complainant is that she managed to stop her car near the car ahead of it and car moving at a speed of 70 kmph dashed into her car from behind. So there were 3 vehicles involved in series in the accident. Moreover, on perusal of the photographs of the vehicle annexed by the complainant damage to the vehicle does not appear to be that extensive that the air bags should have been deployed. We are of the view as there are many features in the car to mitigate the impact of collusion apart from airbags and hence, the impact of the last vehicle have been shared by three cars leading to non deployment of airbags as collusion forces have been absorbed by crumble zones of three vehicles.
9.     In view of the above discussion, the complainant has not been able to prove her case with regard to non deployment of airbags. We do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  
10.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
08/08/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member