JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Mrs. Leela Sahu, the complainant, purchased a Hyundai New Verna car on 25.8.2011, manufactured by Hyundai Motors India Ltd./opposite party No. 1 through its dealer, M/s Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd./opposite party No. 2, for a sum of Rs.8,95,000/-, exclusive of registration fee, insurance cost and accessories cost etc. The said car had the facility of Air Bags, which are used for safety of the lives of the people sitting inside the car at the time of accident. For that facility, a sum of Rs.2 to 2.5 lakh was extra charged. 2. On 18.12.2011, the said car met with an accident, due to which the vehicle got damaged completely. This is an indisputable fact that during the accident, the Air Bags installed in the vehicle did not deploy i.e. did not move or act, remained stagnant. Fortunately, the driver of the vehicle, who was wearing the seat belt at the time of accident, was able to save his life. 3. The defence set up by the opposite party No. 2 was that the impact of jerk could not reach upto the censor, as a result of which, the Air Bags did not deploy. Opposite party No. 1 contended that the instant complaint was filed solely with the intention to diminish the prestige and reputation of an internationally renowned company i.e. Hyundai Motors -3- India Ltd. and there is no fault or deficiency in the vehicle. A special team of opposite parties also inspected the accidental vehicle and found that the accident took place due to bursting of tyre of the vehicle, after colluding with a pole lying on the road. Since the collusion did not take place in front of the censor, therefore, Air Bags did not deploy. Again, activation or deployment of an Air Bag in a crash depends on several important factors like characteristics of the crash, speed, other vehicles involvement, direction of impact etc. As per the manual, Air Bags did not deploy if the collusion is not severe or having impact of below 30 degree. Air Bags will not deploy if the collusion took place from side direction of the vehicle. The car in question had already met with two accidents i.e. on 19.9.2011 and 10.11.2011 and the accidental car was subjected to repairs and maintenance. The car was driven by the complainant in a very rough and negligent manner. 4. The District Forum passed the following order: “A. Opposite party No. 1 and 2, either jointly or severally, shall pay Rs.8,95,000/- (rupees eight lakh ninety five thousand only) to the complainant on account of mental pain and agony; B. In case the aforesaid amount is not paid to the complainant with the stipulated time, the opposite party No. 1 -4- and 2 will be responsible to pay, either jointly or severally, interest to the complainant at the rate of 7 percent p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment; C. Opposite Party No. 1 and 2, either jointly or severally, shall pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant on account of litigation expenses.” 5. Being aggrieved by this order, both the opposite parties filed separate appeals before the State Commission. The appeal filed by the opposite party was partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- instead of Rs.8,95,000/-. 6. Not satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, the present revision petition has been filed by opposite party No. 1/Hyundai Motors India Ltd. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission of this case. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the complainant has not adhered to the terms and conditions described in the manual of this car. She argued that under all these circumstances, the Air Bags of the car cannot deploy. She also argued that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the complainant. -5- 9. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. The facts of this case speak for themselves. This is a case of accident. There is not even an iota of evidence, which may go to prove that the instant case comes within the above said exception. Learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party has tried to make an attempt to louse up the real issue. A person spent huge amount to save his life but this case clearly goes to show that the complainant was taken for a ride. Opposite Party No. 2 has given a lame explanation by stating that impact of jerk could not reach upto the censor as a result, the Air Bags could not deploy. Sale of extra Air Bags amounts to cheating and fraud with the innocent customers. Such like Air Bags further endanger the lives of the customers. The customers think that their lives would be saved because they are armed with Air Bags. The opposite party/Hyundai Motors India Ltd. is collecting crores of rupees from innocent customers throughout the country on the pretext of life saving Air Bags. So many customers are lead up the garden path. This is a very serious matter and the Hyundai Motors India Ltd. should stop selling such like vehicles with Air Bags unless or until they are cent percent without flaws of any kind. 10. We have also noted that the accident took place as back as on 18.12.2011 but the State Commission did not impose any interest on the opposite parties. The above said event had endangered the life of the -6- complainant/driver. She had to file a case and contest up to the National Commission. All these events must have caused harassment, mental agony, anger, anguish, frustration and sadness to the complainant. The bizarre conduct of the opposite parties, especially opposite party No. 1 cannot be brushed under the carpet. We, therefore, dismiss the revision petition and impose further costs in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh upon the opposite party No. 1, out of which Rs.75,000/- shall be paid to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission through demand draft within a period of 90 days from the date of this order, failing which, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum. | 
