STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                         U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                            (Additional Bench)

M/s Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Shri Varinder Singh Saluja son of Late Sh.H.S.Saluja, having its registered address at Plot No.140, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. 

                                                                                                       …Appellant

                                         V e r s u s

1. Jyoti Kumari daughter of  Prem Raj Meena wife of Jagpal Meena, resident of Working Women Hostel, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh
2. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director,   Corporate Office at  5th floor, Plot No.142, CHIMES 142, Sector 44 Road, Gurugram (Haryana).
3. Anurag Mehrota, President-cum-Managing Director, India Ford India Pvt. Ltd.  S.P. Koil Post Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu 603204.
4. Vinay Raina, Executive Director for marketing, Sales& Service Ford India Pvt. Ltd. S.P. Koil Post, CHENGALPATTUU, Tamil Nadu 603204
5.  

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 29.03.2023 passed by          District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.1074/2019.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                        MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

For the appellant  :              Sh. Ankur Bali,  Advocate  

For respondent No.1:          Sh. Jagpal Meena, husband of respondent No.1               For respondent No.2 to 4:   Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate.

 PER PADMA PANDEY,PRESIDING MEMBER

                       This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.03.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it  allowed the complaint bearing No.CC/1074/2019 by directing the Opposite Parties as  under ;

1. “to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant  for deficiency in service rendered  to her on account of the airbags of the car having not deployed/triggered;
2.         to pay 20,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/respondent  No.1 that she  purchased a vehicle (Ford Figo car, 1.2, Ti-vct petrol) of Ford company from Opposite Party No.1  on 25.4.2016 by paying Rs.5,10,078/- which was registered vide registration No.CH-01-BG-7487. After purchase of the vehicle, the complainant got the same serviced  regularly from time to time. On 24.9.2019, the said vehicle met with an accident when the complainant was travelling to  Dehradun and the car hit a Guard rails so badly that the front side of the car was totally damaged with huge impact on driver side but the Air Bags of the car did not open.  The complainant and her family members received minor injuries in the said accident.  The husband of the complainant immediately called the toll free number of the Opposite parties  and informed them about the accident and also asked about the non-opening of the air bags. The customer care department of the OPs assured the husband of the complainant that they will get back  on the air bags issue and sent an email to the husband of the complainant.  Thereafter, several emails were exchanged with the OPs but no satisfactory reply was given. It is alleged that at the time of accident the safety equipments did not work which caused utter shock to the complainant and her family members. After accident, the car was sent to the service station of OP No.1 and after inspection they made an estimate of  repair for Rs.1,64,706/- and the complainant  was left with no other option but to get the car repaired. It is alleged that the OPs took the accident very lightly and did not understand the mental and physical agony suffered by the family members of the complainant. It was alleged that non-opening of the air bags of the car was nothing but a manufacturing defect.      Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission seeking refund of the amount spent on the purchase of the vehicle alongwith interest, compensation and costs etc. .

 3.                 Pursuant to issuance of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared before the Ld. District Commission and contested the complaint. In its written version, Opposite Party No.1  stated that after the accident and as per email exchanged and  duly sent by the manufacturer company to the complainant as well as to the answering OP on 8.10.2019 it was categorically explained that the airbags installed in the vehicle are only 2nd restraint system, primary being the seat belt which are the primary restraint systems which offers maximum protection to occupants in the event of collision. If the seat belts are not worn and even if the airbags open it can actually cause severe injuries to the occupant.  The vehicle is also designed in such a manner that there are major crumple zones to absorb maximum shock during collision and these are the 1st point of impact/shock absorption and the same are to maximize safety aspects of the passengers during an accident.  Further in the email, it was also explained that the critical point which has to be taken a note in the present case is that only if the impact is so severe that the shock travels beyond these into passenger cabin or cockpit to cause a potential danger to the passengers, then in that eventuality , the sensor activates to deploy airbags. Further it was also intimated that the deployment of airbags during significant frontal collisions that are upto 30˚ from the left or the right, the airbags will inflate within a few thousandths of a second and deflate on contact with the occupant, thus, cushioning forward body movement. During minor frontal collisions overturns, rear collisions and side collisions, the airbag will not deploy and the said aspect has been detailed in the owner’s manual as well. Furthermore, in the present case the impact occurred between vertical roadside railing bar and front long member (crumple zone)  and is an off centre frontal impact on driver side area.  Vehicle has sustained limited offset frontal impact and it has not reached the threshold to command airbag for deployment. It is denied that the Ops had not given satisfactory reply to the query raised by the husband of the complainant and the OPs had taken the accident lightly. It was pleaded that  there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  It was further pleaded that the answering OP has unnecessarily been impleaded as a party.  Denying other allegations and  pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its, a prayer was made by the OP for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 in their joint reply denied that there was any defect or shortcoming in the airbag deployment.  An internal investigative team constituted by OP NO.2 concluded  that the vehicle has sustained impact, which was classified as “limited offset frontal impact” and hence, airbag deployment threshold was not met. It was pointed out that impact was absorbed by  the front bumper, grill and fenders all of which constitute as crumple zone, and are part of the SRS Features provided in the subject vehicle. Further the airbags are only one of the many components of the entirety of the safety features provided in the subject vehicle and it would not be out of place to mention here that mere non-deployment of airbags does not mean that there is a defect in the subject vehicle. It was stated  that the airbag deployment logistics, require meeting of very specific criteria which had been duly informed to the complainant both through email dated 8.10.2019 and through owner’s manual.   It was further stated that   no expert evidence or expert opinion as required to be adduced in cases of manufacturing defect has been placed on record.  Denying other allegations and  pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, a prayer was made by the OPs for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                   On appraisal of the pleadings, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the Complaint of Respondent No.1/ Complainant, as noticed in the opening para of this order.   

6.              Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

7.                We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

8.              The    ground putforth  by the appellant  in the  appeal is that as per the case set up by respondent No.1/complainant the vehicle in question suffered from manufacturing defect which was the reason why the airbags failed to deploy when the vehicle  met with an accident and had suffered frontal damage. With regard to the said cause, there could have been no attribution upon the appellant as  it has no role to play in the manufacturing of the vehicle and the same was within the ambit of the work being carried out by the Ford India Pvt. Limited.  It was further stated that the appellant had sold the vehicle in question which was manufactured by respondent No.2. The vehicle  was used to be brought to the workshop of the appellant company for service  and each and every time the vehicle was repaired/serviced to full satisfaction of the complainant.  It was further  stated that there is no allegation in the complaint regarding  deficiency in providing service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant.   Thus, it was prayed that the  impugned order be set aside against the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.  On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of  respondent No.1 that the order passed by Ld. Lower Commission being  quite justified and reasonable does not call for any interference. 

9.              It is admitted case of the parties that  the car in question met with an accident on 24.9.2019 and during the said accident the airbags failed to deploy.  The occupants of the car suffered minor injuries. However, the car was badly damaged during the accident. Respondent No.1/complainant has placed on record photographs of the damaged car as Annexure C-4(colly). Without forceful impact, the car would not have been so badly damaged and to set right the damage the repairer charged Rs.1,64,706/- when the total price of the car was Rs.5,10,078/-.The Learned District Commission also observed that the photographs annexed with the complaint highlighted the fact that there was significant damage to the front portion of the car. The Ld. District Commission rightly concluded that the frontal airbags of the car were defective and that was the reason they did not deploy even in a frontal collision of the car. The manufacturing Company of the Car i.e. Respondent No.2 did not place on record any investigation report/expert opinion to support its version that the impact of accident was not so forceful to activate the sensor to deploy airbags.  The Ld. District Commission rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as Hyundai Motor India Limited Vs Shailendra Bhatnagar Civil Appeal No.3001 of 2002 decided on 20..4.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while dismissing the appeal of the manufacturing company observed as under ;

 “We would like to add here that ordinarily a consumer while purchasing a vehicle with airbags would assume that the same would be deployed whenever there is a collision from the front portion of the vehicle (in respect of front airbags). Both the fora, in their decisions, have highlighted the fact that there was significant damage to the front portion of the vehicle. Deployment of the airbags ought to have prevented injuries being caused to those travelling in the vehicle, particularly in the front seat. A consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics calculating the impact of a collision on the theories based on velocity and force. In such circumstances, we do not find that there is any error in the findings of the two fora as regards there being defect in the vehicle.”

                   As regards privity of contract between the dealer and the manufacturer, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under ;

“The question on privity of contract was also raised before the State as also the National Commission and from the decision under appeal we find that this point was raised on the ground that the dealer was not impleaded as a party and there was no contract between the appellant and the respondent consumer. This issue was rejected by both the consumer fora. No argument has been advanced before us on this point and we do not find any error in the reasoning of the National Commission on this point.”

10.                   After going through the contents of  the appeal and the impugned order passed, we are of the view  that   the Ld. Lower Commission rightly ordered to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to respondent No.1/complainant alongwith costs of Rs.20,000/-.  However, in view of the fact that the appellant was only a dealer of the manufacturer- Respondent No.2  M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd. and for the non-deployment/ failure of airbags it cannot be held liable.  This Commission is of the view that ends of justice would meet if the impugned order is directed to be complied with by respondents No.2 to 4/Opposite Party No.2 to 4 only  instead of jointly and severally by the Opposite Parties. We order accordingly.  

 11.                     In view of the above discussion, this appeal is partly accepted with modification that the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 of District Commission-I shall be complied with by respondents No.2 to 4/Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 only instead of jointly and severally by all the Opposite Parties.

12.            In view of the present Appeal being partly accepted with above modification in the impugned order, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly

13.                 Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

14.               The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.