Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainants have filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)  on the allegations that Aman Sood son of Parveen Kumar Sood was owner of Creta Car bearing No.PB-29R-0088, Engine No.024248 VIN Nol.069829 and said car was insured with HDFC General Insurance Company. The complainants are the legal heirs of said Aman Sood son of Parveen Kumar Sood.  Further alleges that on 25.04.2019 Aman Sood   alongwith Gurpreet Singh were going to Jammu, and Gurpreet Singh was driving the vehicle in question and Aman Sood was sitting adjacent to the driver seat of the car and Vikas was sitting in the vehicle on the backside of Aman Sood.  At about 11.30 AM when the car reached near Navyug Factor, Jalandhar, the driver of the vehicle applied brake as some other car which was going in front of the car of Aman Sood applied its brake and due to sudden application of brakes, the car of Aman Sood slipped to the divider side and it struck against divider of the road thereafter turned over. But the front and side air bags of said creta car did not open, resultantly, the drive of the car and Aman Sood seriously injured whereas Vikas also suffered some minor injuries and at that time, the speed of the car was 80 to 85 KM per hour. Lateron, Aman Sood died in the hospital who was the only bread earner of the complainants.  Since said car was insured with HDFC General Insurance Company and said insurance company has paid Rs.15 lakhs to complainant No.1 on account of death of Aman Sood because as per the policy of HDFC ERGO, alongwith the car in question the owner of the car is also insured.  Further alleges, hat said Aman sood had purchased the vehicle in question keeping in mind its  safety features alongwith safety features of air bags which have to come into operation at the time of accident and for this Aman Sood paid more to the Opposite Parties for the sole facility of air bags with a belief and a faith that in the event of accident, said air bags would open automatically and the driver and the persons sitting on either side of the driver would be saved, but in the present case, since the air bags are not opened during accident, which resulted into death of said Aman Sood.  Hence, due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainants who are legal heirs of Aman Sood suffered great loss and for this, the complainants made requests to the Opposite Parties to make good the loss amounting to Rs.20 lakhs, but to no affect.   In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant is left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation on account of death of Aman Sood, or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.

2.       Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complainants have concealed and misrepresented the facts that owner manual was provided to the complainant alongwith the car and wherein, function of different parts including functions of Air Bags-SRS (Supplemental Restraint System) had been explained in details and also the scenarios/ conditions in which they may not deploy/ inflate. The complainants have further concealed the material fact that vehicle has  covered more than 1,12,500 KM and further that the vehicle had been reported for accidental repairs of 7 times and during none of these time any concern was reported by the deceased regarding Air- Bags and all the times vehicle was repaired and delivered back.  The deployment of SRS (Supplemental Restraint System) Air Bag system depends on a number of set conditions built into the logic of the SRS control unit. The front airbags are designed to inflate in a frontal collision depending on number of factors including vehicle speed, angles of impact and density and stiffness of the vehicle of objects which the vehicle his in the collision. The above aid conditions are only indicative and not exhaustive. In case these conditions are not met then the SRS (Supplemental Restraint System) Air bags would not deploy. The purpose of the SRS (Supplemental Restraint System) Air bags is to provide the vehicle’s driver and/ or the front passenger with additional protection than that offered by the seat belt system, in case of frontal impact of sufficient severity. The SRSCM continuously monitors all components while the ignition is On to determine if a crash impact is sever enough to require air bag deployment or pre-tensioner seat belt deployment. When the SRSCM detects a sufficiently severe impact to the front of the vehicle, it will automatically deploy the front air bag in a collision. Further, the curtain air bags on both sides of the vehicle are designed to deploy when a rollover is detected by rollover sensor. The curtain air bags are not  designed to deploy in all side impacts or rollovers.  Moreover, the conditions under which SRS (Supplemental Restraint System) air bags may not deploy/ inflate has been clearly mentioned in the Owner Manual.  Further the seat belts are the primary safety equipment and the complainants have nowhere stated that whether late Aman Sood was wearing the seat belts. Further when the vehicle was reported for accidental repairs at 1,12,500 no such concern was reported regarding non deployment of the air bags.  Moreover, the vehicle had standard warranty from the date of purchase i.e. from 31.01.2016 till 30.01.2019 and the vehicle was purchased on 31.01.2016 and the accident took place on 24.05.2019 and hence, the accident took place after the expiry of the warranty period. Further more, the complainants have failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Parties. On merits, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       Opposite Party No.3  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party No.3 filed almost the same and similar written reply and took similar objections as filed by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. On merits also, Opposite Party No.3 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.       In order to  prove  their  case, the complainants have tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.CW1, affidavit of Manjit Singh Dhillon Ex.CW2 another affidavit of Gurpreet Singh Ex.CW3 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1/A to Ex.C1/D and copies of other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10, photographs Ex.C11 to Ex.C15 and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Varun Panta Ex.Ops,1,2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.Ops1, 2 to Ex.Ops1,2/4 and  closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Similarly, Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amardeep Singh Ex.OP3/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.Ops3,2 and Ex.Ops3/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions filed by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and  gone through the documents placed  on record.

7.       During the course of arguments, both the ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties  have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written reply respectively.   

8.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly contended that  at the time of accident the air bags of the vehicle not opened resultantly, death of  owner of the vehicle i.e. Aman Sood. On the other hand, the main contention of the Opposite Parties is that the seat belts are the primary safety equipment and the complainants have nowhere stated that whether late Aman Sood was wearing the seat belts. Further when the vehicle was reported for accidental repairs at 1,12,500 KM, no such concern was reported regarding non deployment of the air bags.  Moreover, the vehicle had standard warranty from the date of purchase i.e. from 31.01.2016 till 30.01.2019 and the vehicle was purchased on 31.01.2016 and the accident took place on 24.05.2019 and hence, the accident took place after the expiry of the warranty period. Further more, the complainants have failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Parties. On the other hand, in the rejoinder of the written statement, the complainants have specifically repelled the contention regarding the non wearing of seat belt at the time of accident and vehemently contended that at the time of accident driver Gurpreet Singh and Aman Sood were wearing seat belts and moreover, the onus to prove this assertion is upon the Opposite Parties, but they have failed to file any document or proof on the record in  this respect. Further contention of the Opposite Parties is that when the vehicle was reported for accidental repairs at 1,12,500 no such concern was reported regarding non deployment of the air bags, but it is not expected that after the accident, the occupier of the car in question who was seriously injured will click the photographs as contended by the Opposite Parties.

9.       The main grouse of the Complainants is that on the fateful day of 25.04.2019, the car, in question, met with an accident, when Aman Sood   alongwith Gurpreet Singh were going to Jammu, and Gurpreet Singh was driving the vehicle in question and Aman Sood was sitting adjacent to the driver seat of the car and Vikas was sitting in the vehicle on the backside of Aman Sood.  At about 11.30 AM when the car reached near Navyug Factor, Jalandhar, the driver of the vehicle applied brake as some other car which was going in front of the car of Aman Sood applied its brake and due to sudden application of brakes, the car of Aman Sood slipped to the divider side and it  struck against divider of the road thereafter turned over. But the front and side air bags of said creta car did not open, resultantly, the drive of the car and Aman Sood seriously injured whereas Vikas also suffered some minor injuries and at that time, the speed of the car was 80 to 85 KM per hour. Lateron, Aman Sood died in the hospital who was the only bread earner of the complainants. Photographs of the accidental car which was badly damaged in accident are placed on record as Ex.C11 to Ex.C15. As per the case of the Complainants, inspite of such extensive damage, due to certain defect in the car only, the airbags of the car did not open.

10.      The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant has not produced any expert opinion regarding the alleged manufacturing defect. It has been further contended by Opposite Party No.2 that the airbag deployment depends on a number of set conditions built into the logic of control unit. The impact on the car should be direct and should meet a pre-determined Opposite Parties, side impact and curtain bags are designed to inflate when an impact is detected by side collision again depending on the strength/speed and angles of impact resulting from a side impact.

11.     In the present case, as per photographs Ex.C11 to Ex.C15  of the accidental/damaged car, it is quite evident that the car got completely damaged, along with various other parts and to such extensive  damage, Aman Sood owner of the vehicle died. It is sufficient to prove that there was some defect/ problem with the censors of the curtain airbags which did not get deployed inspite of such an accident. Therefore, the defence taken by the Opposite Parties is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We feel that the Opposite Parties would have agreed on the question of defect in the vehicle with regard to the censors of the airbags only when one passenger of the car in  question had died as in the instant case and the driver of the car seriously injured and one passenger sitting on the rear seat also suffered injuries and hence,  the intensity of the accident was very high as is evident from the photographs and non-deployment of airbags proves that certainly there was some problem with regard to the censors of the airbags. The circumstances prove unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties in selling such an expensive car with defective censors of the airbags which caused great loss to the complainants.

12.     Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed against all the Opposite Parties. All the Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed to pay  lump sum compensation of  Rs.2.00 lakh (Rupees two lakhs only) to the Complainants on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment,  alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of  filing the present complaint i.e. 09.09.2019   till its actual realization.  The compliance of this order be made by  the Opposite Parties  within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants  shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

13.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.05.2022.