Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/497/2014

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Karan Singla

15 Apr 2015

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/497/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	24/07/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	15/04/2015

 

 

 

 

 

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

….Complainant

Vs.

 

(1)    Hyundai Motors, through its concerned Manager, Registered Office & Factory Irrugattukottai, NH No.4, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602117.

 

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

 

……Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

 

Argued By:    Sh. Karan Singla, Counsel for Complainant.

Ms. Nitika Jindal, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, 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 has been averred that the said car was fitted with six airbags (2 in front and 4 curtain side in all the doors). 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 the car got overturned and was extensively damaged (DDR Annexure C-5). 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 (Medical Reports Annexure C-6). It has been alleged that despite heavy damage to the car (Photographs Annexure C-7), none of the airbags of the car got opened, which in turn was a serious threat to life to the Complainant. The car was towed to the Service Station of Opposite Party No.2 for accidental repairs. While delivering the car, the Complainant made a specific Complaint about non-deployment of the airbags. However, the 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 has been alleged that the accident was so dreadful that the damage also reached the seats of the car and the car seats were also got changed. According to the Complainant, the non-deployment of airbags amounts to manufacturing defect in the car, therefore, he has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case has maintained that for deployment of airbag certain pre-determined conditions are required and SRS airbag deployment depends 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. As per 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. In the end, it was concluded that sufficient impact to deploy air bag was not recorded in the Control Module, which justifies the air bag non-deployment. It has been denied that the accident was of magnitude to trigger the deployment of airbags as alleged and non deployment of airbags was due to manufacturing defect. In its letter dated 30.4.2014 the OP No.2 has given complete details of the reason of non-deployment of all airbags. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

4.     Opposite Party No.2 filed reply, admitting the factual aspects of the case. It has been pleaded that the airbags are 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 has been asserted that the Sensors were found to be intact and even the SRSCM system which records that the crash was also not having any such event in it. The deployment of the airbags depends upon various factors. The intensity of impact on front and side is important for deployment of the airbags. In the present case, the vehicle overturned while it was on the unmetalled passage and the impact is on the roof of the vehicle. The vehicle has neither collided with any other vehicle from front or from any side nor it has collided with any stationary object at a high speed, therefore, the question of deployment of airbags does not arise at all. The answering Opposite Party thoroughly investigated the matter and conveyed its observations to the Complainant vide its letter dated 30.4.2014. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

5.     The Complainant also filed submissions along with submissions in rebuttal wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have been controverted.

 

6.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.  

 

8.     The case of the Complainant is that he bought the top end model of Hyundai Verna Fluidic car by spending lot of extra amount only due to the facility/ feature of 6 airbags in total, 2 in front and 4 curtain side airbags installed in it, to save himself and his family in case of any serious accident.  

 

9.     The main grouse of the Complainant is that on the fateful night of 6.4.2014, the car, in question, met with an accident, and took three over turns, in total. The Complainant got multiple injuries as per Annex. C-6 the copy of medical prescription. Annexure C-7 are the photographs of the accidental/damaged car, produced on record by the Complainant. As per the case of the Complainant, 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 No.1 & 2 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 set value of sudden deceleration in the car movement. As per Opposite Party No.2, 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. Importantly, as per Annexure-2 (Safety Features of the vehicle), at page 22 of the paper-book, there is mention of:-

 

“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.” 

 

 

          As per the Opposite Parties, the same was conveyed to the Complainant through letter dated 30.4.2014 (Annexure-1).

 

11.     In the present case, as per Annexure C-7, the photographs of the accidental/damaged car, it is quite evident that one side of the car got completely damaged, along with various other parts. As per the Complainant, the car rolled on thrice, therefore, the same got damaged so badly. All the documents Annexure C-7 (Photographs), Annexure C-6 (Medical Report of the Complainant) and Annexure C-8A (Repair Invoice submitted with the written submission by the Complainant) show that there was extensive damage and it was certainly a miraculous death escape for the Complainant. 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 or more passengers of the car in question had died. In the present case, the Complainant survived only by the grace of God, but the intensity of the accident was very high as is evident from the photographs and repair invoice 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.

 

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/-.  

 

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

Announced

15^th April, 2015                         

 

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER