Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2021 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that on 03.09.2017, the vehicle of the complainant Hyundai Verna bearing RC No.PB-10-FF-6900 met with an accident due to imbalance and struck to bridge of river when it was driven at 100 KMs/ hours speed, and due to the said accident, the front of the car was totally damaged to high extent, but none of the Air Bag was opened/ worked even immediately after this major accident. In this regard, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 on 4.9.2017 and told that no air bag was opened after the said accident, but they did not give satisfactory reply. At last, the complainant received a reply that said car was inspected and it was observed that Supplement Restraint System (SRS) was functioning normally and also it was observed that the vehicle had angled collision one left hand side with side railings. In such angled collision, the force of impact directs of occupants in a direction where the airbags would not be able to provide any additional benefit. Hence, sensors do not deploy any airbags, but said reply was not satisfactory which is clear cut negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.18 lakhs on account of compensation for causing mental torture, agony and harassment and pecuniary loss to the complainant due to the negligent and deficient services on the part of the Opposite Parties and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the report of the vehicle Inspection revealed that it is a case of angular impact and the same is evident from the photographs. In such type of crash, it is unlikely to deploy airbags, as it may not provide additional benefit. In an angled/ side collision, the force of the impact may direct the occupants in a direction where the air bags would not be able to provide any additional benefit and hence sensors may not deploy any airbags. Further no crash information has been recorded in SRS (Supplement Restraint System). It is further submitted that impact sensors are located on Cross bar and thee was no impact on the Cross Bar of the car and the same was found intact and the air bag sensor did not receive any impact at the time of accident and therefore, the air bags did not deploy and there is no defect in the air bags. Further, said vehicle had underwent accidental repair several times i.e. on 10.05.2016 at a mileage of 49404 kms, then on 27.07.2016 at a mileage of 55263 kms, then on 17.05.2017 at a mileage of 76161 kms and on 22.07.2017 at a mileage of 80151 kms which shows that the complainant was handling the said vehicle in negligent manner which may be the reason for the non deployment of the airbags. On merits, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opposite Party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant against the answering Opposite Party is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and has been filed solely with the intention to cause un-warranted and uncalled harassment to the answering Opposite Party. The complainant has got no cause of action against the answering Opposite Party because the car was not manufactured by the answering Opposite Party and if there is any manufacturing defect I nthe car it will be compensated by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 because they are the manufacturer of the car in question and hence, it is prayed that the complaint against Opposite Party No.3 may please be dismissed.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence the affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and Ex.CW2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Ex.R1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1-2/1 to Ex.OP1-2/3 and close the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
8. Ld.counsel for the Complainants as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statement respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant on 03.09.2017, the vehicle of the complainant Hyundai Verna bearing RC No.PB-10-FF-6900 met with an accident due to imbalance and struck to bridge of river when it was driven at 100 KMs/ hours speed, and due to the said accident, the front of the car was totally damaged to high extent, but none of the Air Bag was opened/ worked even immediately after this major accident. In this regard, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 on 4.9.2017 and told that no air bag was opened after the said accident, but they did not give satisfactory reply. At last, the complainant received a reply that said car was inspected and it was observed that Supplement Restraint System (SRS) was functioning normally and also it was observed that the vehicle had angled collision one left hand side with side railings. In such angled collision, the force of impact directs of occupants in a direction where the airbags would not be able to provide any additional benefit. Hence, sensors do not deploy any airbags, but said reply was not satisfactory which is clear cut negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the report of the vehicle Inspection revealed that it is a case of angular impact and the same is evident from the photographs. In such type of crash, it is unlikely to deploy airbags, as it may not provide additional benefit. In an angled/ side collision, the force of the impact may direct the occupants in a direction where the air bags would not be able to provide any additional benefit and hence sensors may not deploy any airbags. Further no crash information has been recorded in SRS (Supplement Restraint System). Further contended that that impact sensors are located on Cross bar and thee was no impact on the Cross Bar of the car and the same was found intact and the air bag sensor did not receive any impact at the time of accident and therefore, the air bags did not deploy and there is no defect in the air bags. Further, said vehicle had underwent accidental repair several times i.e. on 10.05.2016 at a mileage of 49404 kms, then on 27.07.2016 at a mileage of 55263 kms, then on 17.05.2017 at a mileage of 76161 kms and on 22.07.2017 at a mileage of 80151 kms which shows that the complainant was handling the said vehicle in negligent manner which may be the reason for the non deployment of the airbags. It is not disputed that the car in dispute was completely damaged, along with various other parts. 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. We are further of the view that after the accident, if the airbags deploy, then the loss to the vehicle could be minimise. Moreover, a person purchases such expensive vehicle having facility of airbags, only seeing its benefit and safety of the passengers and its usage as and when requires. But however, if said airbags did not get deployed after the accident, then what was the need for a person to purchase such vehicle after spending hefty amount with no purpose. Therefore, the defence taken by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 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 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 complainant. On this count, the Complainant prays before this District Consumer Commission to make good the loss of to the extent of Rs.18 lakhs for causing him physical as well as mental pain, agony, harassment humiliation and Unfair Trade Practice committed by the Opposite Parties besides Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.18 lakhs appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousands only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 08.12.2017 till its actual realization. Compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Dated:28.06.2022.
