Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/405/2014

Satpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai Motor India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Neeraj Malhotra, Adv.

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	405 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	08.08.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	29.02.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Satpal s/o Late Sh.Parshotam Dass, aged about 70 years, R/o H.No.229, Giani Zail Singh Nagar Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Hyundai Motor India Limited, Plot No.H1, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu.

 

2]  Ultimate Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 155 Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

 

3]  Joshi Hyundai, C-117, Industrial Focal Point, Phase-VII, Mohali (S.A.S. Nagar)

 

4]  Bhakra Serice Station Pvt. Ltd., Ropar Kurali Road NH-21, Near Toll Barrier-Ropar.

 

5]  National Insurance Company, Nangal Chowk above Chevrolet Showroom, Ropar.

 

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Neeraj Malhotra, Advocate.

                         

For Opposite Party No.1 :     Sh.Amit Gupta, Advocate

For Opposite Party No.2 :     Sh.A.S.Khara, Advocate.

For Opposite Party No.3 :     Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate

For Opposite Party No.4 :     Sh.Pradeep Kumar, Authorised Agent

For Opposite Party No.5 :     Sh.J.P.Nahar, Advocate  

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased new Hyundai Car i20 Sports Model from Opposite Party No.2 on 13.8.2012, manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, and got it registered vide Regd. NO.PB-12-Q-0678.  It is averred that the complainant purchased the Sportz Model of said car considering its safety features containing Airbag facility on driver side and thus costing more than its base model.  It is averred that on 6.1.2014, when the son of the complainant was coming back home through Yamuna Expressway at the speed of 60-65 KM as it was foggy night, at about 8.35 PM and reached location NO.13, near Mathura Toll, a canter moving ahead of it suddenly applied breaks, as a result the car of the complainant struck the canter from back side, as a result the engine of the car was totally crushed and car was extensively damaged, but shockingly, the airbag of the said car did not inflate (Ann.C-1).  It is further averred that the son of the complainant survived the probability between death or life from impact only because he was wearing seat belt, but still his right hand was badly fractured.  Thereafter, the damaged vehicle was towed to workshop of Opposite Party No.2, who prepared the repair estimate of Rs.9.00 lacs and ultimately, the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company declared the vehicle as “Total Loss”. 

         It is pleaded that the complainant was inquisitive to find out that why the airbag of the car did not work as it was a head on collision and the engine of the car was totally crushed, therefore, enquired Opposite Party NO.3 to illustrate the reasons for non-working of the airbag.  It is also pleaded that Opposite Party No.3 after complete examination stated that it was a manufacturing defect because there was a crack on the airbag assembly and airbag sensors are completely crushed due to the impact but still air bags did not deploy.  Further, pleaded that from the estimate given by Opposite Party No.3, it is clear that they have include the cost of airbag assembly along with sensors in estimate (Ann.C-4) and the balloon was intact from inside (Ann.C-1).  It is submitted that due to the said accident, the son of the complainant, who is an Advocate by profession, could not attend his work for two months.  It is also submitted that the complainant asked for value for his money from the OPs which he had paid for the safety, which did not work even after head on collision.  Hence, alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as unethical, illegal, misleading, deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and admitted the sale of the vehicle in question.  The occurrence of alleged accident as well as the damage of the car is not disputed.  However, it is submitted that the SRS airbag deployment depends upon a number of set conditions built into the logic of the control unit. That the front airbags are designed to inflate in a frontal collision depending on the intensity, speed or angles of impact from a front collision and in case these conditions are not met, then the air bag would not inflate. That the impact on the car should be direct and should meet a pre-determined set value of sudden deceleration in the car movement.  However, in this case, the nature of impact did not meet those set conditions and vehicle did not decelerated after impact but gone forward for quite a distance at same speed before break were applied.  It is pleaded that the SRS is designed to deploy the airbags only when an impact is sufficiently severe and when the impact angle is less than 30 degree from the forward longitudinal axis of the vehicle and will not deploy in rear, side or rollover impacts.  That the airbag will not deploy in frontal crashes below the deployment threshold speed and all these conditions are clearly mentioned in the Owner’s Manual (Ann.1).  It is also pleaded that it is admitted fact on the part of the complainant that the car in question rammed a canter from behind the back. It is submitted that just before impact, driver of the car often brake heavily and such heavy braking lowers the front portion of the vehicle causing it to ride under a vehicle with a higher ground clearance.  It is also submitted that airbag may not inflate in this under-ride situation because deceleration forces that are detected by sensors may be significantly replaced by such under-ride collisions.  It is denied that the vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing defect nor complainant lead any opinion of an expert as evidence to this effect.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

         The Opposite Party No.2 has also filed reply stating therein that the answering Opposite Party does not have any privity of contract of insurance  and in respect of the amount spent on repairs of the vehicle, it is for the complainant to make payment of the same and as far as the taking of claim by the insured/complainant from the insurance company is concerned, that is a bilateral matter between the complainant and the insurance company and whether the insurance company shall, by availing cashless facility, make payment directly to the repairer or after the submission of the payment vouchers by the insured/complainant, is a private arrangement between the complainant and insurance company.  It is stated that no repairs of the vehicle were carried out by the answering Opposite Party nor was the accidental vehicle examined from the point of view of operation or non-operation of the air bags.  It is stated that the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle as no expert has examined the vehicle.  Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

         The Opposite Party No.3 has also filed reply and admitted the vehicle in question was brought to its workshop for repairs and charges for estimate were charged.  It is submitted that the case of the complainant under the policy was non-cashless (Ann.R-1 & R-2).  It is also submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 had not ever stated or written anywhere that the vehicle of the complainant suffered the loss due to manufacturing defect as alleged.  It is denied that the estimate given by Opposite Party No.3 depicts any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  It is also denied that safety bags malfunctioned as alleged in the complaint.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

           The Opposite Party No.4 has filed reply and stated that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against answering Opposite Party and liable to be burdened with heavy costs for dragging the Opposite Party No.4 into unnecessary and uncalled for litigation. Denying the allegations of the complainant being not related, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

         The Opposite Party NO.5 has also filed reply and admitted the insurance of the vehicle, damaged during the currency of the insurance policy, deputation of Surveyor to assess the loss and receipt of repair estimate.  It is submitted that the in the present case, the vehicle was a total loss and Opposite Party No.5 had settled the claim on total loss basis.  It is stated that the answering Opposite Party has already paid the claim to the complainant for Rs.4,45,500/- on Net of Salvage basis being total loss case and the car was the property of the complainant, who has to sell it as deemed fit.  It is denied that the car was sold by the insurance company in scrap. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OPs as made in their written statements.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record as well as written arguments.

 

6]       The complainant, who had purchased the vehicle in question from Opposite Party No.2 on 13.8.2012 had got the same fully insured from Opposite Party No.5 and the registration of the vehicle was Punjab-12-Q-0678.  The complainant did not register any complaint with regard to the working of the vehicle in question with Opposite Party No.1 & 2 till the fateful day of 7.1.2014 when unfortunately the same met with an accident on Yamuna Express Highway while being driven by the son of the complainant, who could not comprehend the situation of application of sudden brakes by a canter, which was going in front of the said car, as there was poor visibility due to foggy conditions being the month of Jan., 2014.  The vehicle which was tailgating crashed with the rear of the canter, and almost travelled inside the rear as the Center was at a greater height than the car of the complainant resulting into extensive damage to the front portion as well as the entire engine assembly. 

 

7]       The son of the complainant also suffered bodily injuries along with minor fractures on his right hand meta-carpal, though there was no third party loss of life or property.  The damaged vehicle was taken to Opposite Party No.3 for necessary repairs, however, when an estimate was prepared and the value of loss was assessed by the Surveyor appointed by Opposite Party NO.5, it was concluded that the vehicle was beyond repair having suffered extensive damage. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was settled on total loss basis and was paid the claimed amount, which was duly accepted by the complainant without any protest. 

 

8]       The fracture injury to the right hand of the complainant’s son was attended by GMCH, Chandigarh by casting a splint & plaster and got healed in the due period.

 

9]       The main grouse of the complainant against the Opposite Party No.1 is with regard to the functional default of the air-bags which did not open with the impact of the accident and causing bodily injury to the son of the complainant, who was driving the vehicle at that time. The complainant has alleged a manufacturing defect on this score claiming that due to some inherent defect in the system the air-bags failed to open resulting into the injury to the driver.  The complainant has also claimed that this factor was made known to him by Opposite Party No.3 from where the repair work was proposed.

 

10]      Though there is a complete denial from the side of the Opposite Party No.3 with regard to such averments of the complainant and furthermore, the complainant has failed to place on record any documentary evidence in the shape of an expert opinion explaining the non-functioning of air-bags indicating an inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. The complainant has also not explained as to in what manner, the injuries suffered by the driver of the vehicle, was resultant to the non-opening of the air bags.  Therefore, in the absence of cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence, we are left to believe that the complainant has presumed the hand injury of his son with non-opening of the air-bags of the vehicle and no case of inherent manufacturing defect is made out against Opposite Party No.1 on mere presumptions. 

 

11]      Further, the complainant’s loss due to accident of the vehicle is already stood completely compensated by the insurance company and no illegal deductions from such claim has been alleged against Opposite Party No.5 nor there is any prayer about lesser reimbursement by Opposite Party No.5.    

   

12]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that no case of deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Parties and therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

29^th February, 2016                                                              

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.405 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 29th day of February, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been dismissed against the Opposite Parties.                     After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member