Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/241

Amrinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra and Mahindra - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhir Bharti

17 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/241 of 15.10.2015

                                      Decided on:        17.5.2016

         

Amrinderpal Singh aged about 36 years son of Sh.Sardool Singh R/o H.No.822, Gurbax Colony, St. No.8, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1.      M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Registered Office Gateway Building, Appollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 India through its Managing Director.

2.      M/s Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Authorized Dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Village Dhareri Jattan, Bahadurgarh, Rajpura Road, Patiala through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …………….Ops

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                                     

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:   Sh.Sudhir Bharti, Advocate

For Op No.1:                Ex-parte.           

 

 

                                     

                                         ORDER

A.P.S.Rajput, PRESIDENT

1. Complainant Amrinder Pal Singh son of Sh.Sardool Singh resident of H.No.822, Gurbax Colony, St.No.8, Patiala has brought this complaint against the Opposite Parties ( hereinafter referred to as the Ops) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act).The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. On 17.10.2012, the complainant purchased a vehicle make Mahindra XUV-500 FWD W8-JA Black having chassis No.MA1YL2HJUC6J82161, engine No.HJC4J16253 model 2012 bearing registration No.PB-11BD-1020 for an amount of Rs.13,46,664/- from M/s Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Op no.2. The vehicle being the Top Model was having the facility of six air bags fitted in it. On 26.11.2014, the vehicle met with an accident on account of  the axle of the vehicle broke down for which the vehicle was over turned .The six air bags fitted in the vehicle remained closed and did not open despite the major accident of the vehicle. A DDR No.26 dated 26.11.2014 P.S.Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib was also lodged .At the time of accident the vehicle was being driven by Mr.Harsharan Singh son of Sh.Harbans Singh resident of H.No.956/19 Gali No.2, Amit Vihar , Kailash Nagar Road, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana accompanied by three other passengers namely Munish Kanwar, Anil Kumar and Jatinderpal Singh( real brother of the complainant).In the accident Munish Kumar sustained serious injuries whereas other co-passengers sustained minor injuries. Anil Kumar and Jatinderpal Singh were discharged from Fortis Hospital Ludhiana after having given first aid but Munish Kanwar  remained in the hospital and Rs.1,35,410/- were spent on his treatment. It is averred that on 27.11.2014 the vehicle was brought to the workshop of Op no.2 and a manual repair order form of damaged vehicle was filled by the Op on 27.11.2014 . Op no.2 demanded a sum of Rs.80,000/- as estimated charges for the repair of the vehicle but Rs.20,000/- was paid by the complainant on 17.2.2015.A receipt in this regard was also issued by Op no.2.
3. It is averred that all XUV -500 vehicles of Op no.1 produced upto July 2014 have problem regarding Air Bags software regarding which Op no.1 issued a letter to the complainant for upgrading the air bags deployment software. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant is regularly maintaining the services and other works of the vehicle got from Op no.2. It is averred that the complainant underwent mental torture and agony due to wrong commitments made by the Ops. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the Ops to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as damages and Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of the mental torture, agony, legal charges and  harassment suffered by the complainant.
4. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.1 only, who despite the notice issued against it failed to appear and was thus proceeded against exparte.
5. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C8 and his counsel closed the evidence.
6. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved, in the present case is that, the complainant specifically purchased the suv/vehicle, as it was equipped with 6 airbags. He stated that, it was claimed by the OP no.1 that it is very safe vehicle because of the 6 air bags provided; in case of accident the passengers will sustain minimum injuries. The ld. counsel also submitted that the said vehicle met with a major accident as it is evident from the photographs i.e Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-37 and complainant suffered major injuries due to non deploying of the 6 air bags. He further submitted that for treatment the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,35,410/- as it is evident from the medical record alongwith the bills i.e Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-13.The ld. counsel pleaded that it is evident from the survey report i.e Ex.C-39 and letter dated 30.03.2015 i.e Ex.C-40 issued by Insurance Company that the said vehicle was declared as total loss. The ld. counsel further pleaded that it was in the knowledge of the OP no.1 that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle model purchased by the complainant. He argued that it is established from the notice dated 17.02.2015 sent by the OP no.1, whereby it has been admitted by the OP that it recalled all the vehicles due to fault in deployment of airbags. The ld. counsel also argued that it is established from the act and conduct of the OP no.1, that it misled the complainant by claiming, the vehicle to be safe because of the 6 airbags installed in the said vehicle. The ld. counsel further argued that due to the fault in the deployment of the airbags the complainant sustained major injuries, thus the OP no.1 has indulged in unfair trade practice and complainant deserves to be compensated for the same.

7.        After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the complainant  and the oral arguments as well as the written submission, we are of the opinion that it is established from the photographs i.e Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-37 and from the survey report i.e Ex.C-39 and letter dated 30.03.2015 i.e Ex.C-40 issued by Insurance Company, that the said vehicle met with a major accident on 26.11.2014 and the 6 airbags installed by the OP no.1 did not deploy, thereby the complainant alongwith other passengers sustained injuries. It is also established from the medical record alongwith the bills i.e Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-13 that complainant due to the said accident sustained serious injuries and he spent a sum of Rs.1,35,410/- on his treatment. We also find that it is proved from the notice dated 17.02.2015 i.e Ex.C-38 issued by OP no.1,whereby it is mentioned “There is a possibility of an intermittent fault code that might inhibit deployment of the side curtain airbag”. In our opinion it is established from the notice issued by OP no.1 that there was fault in the deployment of airbags and in case of accident, the airbags might not deploy. We are of the view that it was the duty of the manufacture to take stern steps in order to, intimate and caution all the vehicle owners of the said model, with regard to the fault in airbags. In the case in hand, the complainant had purchased the said vehicle for the sole purpose of safety, which the said vehicle failed to provide at the time of accident.

8.      Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the Op no.1 has indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence we direct the Op no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.1,35,410/- towards medical treatment expenses to the complainant. We further direct the Op no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony caused to the complainant, we also find that the complainant is entitled to litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.The order be complied by the Op within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

9.      In case Op no.1 fails to comply with the order within the stipulated period, the Op shall be liable to pay 9% per annum interest from the date of institution of the complaint on the aforesaid awarded amount. The complaint is hereby partly accepted.

10.    The arguments on the complaint were heard on 12.5.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 17.5.2016

 

 

               Sonia Bansal           Neelam Gupta                        A.P.S.Rajput

        Member                Member                                  President