Haryana

StateCommission

CC/728/2017

MEENU SHEGAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PRADEEP PANWAR

18 Nov 2021

ORDER

 

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017

Date of the Institution: 15.11.2017

Date of Decision: 18.11.2021

 

Meenu Sehgal W/o Deepak Sehgal R/o 51 Mayur Enclave Deep Nagar Jalandhar Cantt. Jalandhar, Punjab.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 (Head Office) through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Lovely Autos, Maruti Suzuki (NEDA), Lovely Mall, Dr. Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar City, District Jalandhar, Punjab (Authorized Dealer of Maruti Suzuki) through its Manager.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Old Palam Road, Gurugram, Haryana 122015, through its Manager.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

 

 

Present:-    Mr.Pardeep Panwar, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Salil Sablok, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and 3.

Mr.S.R.Bansal, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It was alleged by the complainant that on 11.11.2015, he purchased vehicle Baleno from OP No.2-Lovely Autos Maruti Suzuki. On 18.11.2015, the family members of the Sehgal family namely Sanjay Sehgal, Kiran Sehgal, Kunal Sehgal, Anshul Sehgal, Sandeep Sehgal and Pallavi Sehgal were went to Faridabad to surprise his only daughter Deppti Katyal, whose daughter Akanksha had her first birthday on 19.11.2015.   Complainant’s family started journey around 10.30 p.m. on 19.11.2015, at about 3.15 am his car collied with truck and ended in tragedy, when he and three other members of his family were killed in a road accident, while on their way to Faridabad near Gharaunda in Karnal on NH-1 in the wee hours of 18.11.2015/19.11.2015.  Four members were killed after a speeding truck rammed into their car and Nephew and Niece Pallavi sustained serious injuries.  The impact was so severe that after hitting the patato laden truck, the car overturned jumped and divider and rolled on to the other side of the highway. FIR No.0619 dated 19.11.2015 under section 279,337, 304A IPC was registered at PS Gharaunda. Three members died on the spot. Kiran Sehgal succumbed to her injuries at the Panipat Civil Hospital. Sandeep Sehgal and Pallavi Sehgal were admitted to the Karnal Civil Hospital. The vehicle was being driven by Sanjay Sehgal. The occupants of the car were wearing seat belts at the time of accident. At the time of accident, the car was completely crushed beyond recognition. The car comes with dual airbags and ABS as standard along with Total effective control technology ensuring effective absorption and dispersion of crash energy.  Respondent No.2 sale a defective vehicle to complainant resulting that four family members were died due to respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 because when they met with an accident Air bags of the car were not deployed.  The Maruti Suzuki India (NEXA) has issued a recall for two of its top-selling cars Baleno and swift dzire over faulty airbag control software and faulty fuel filters. The company will be recalling 75,419 units of the Baleno for issue with the airbags and 1961 units of the swift dzire will be recalled for inspection and replacement of a faulty fuel filter. The Baleno which have been recalling include both petrol and diesel variants and were manufactured between 03.08.2015 and 17.05.2016.  Out of the 75419 Baleno 15,995 cars are diesel variant that was manufactured between 03.08.2015 and 22.03.2016.  The complainant suffered huge loss.   She has lost her beloved family members in the above said accident. Thus there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  There was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  OPs be directed to pay 95/- lacs alongwith 15% interest and 70,000/- as litigation charges.

 2.       OP No.1 and 3 filed joint reply controverting the averments of the complainant.  Preliminary objections  have been raised regarding jurisdiction, time barred, maintainability and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      On merits, they submitted that complainant and other occupants of the car might have taken MACT claim, which was not disclosed.  The answering OP sells its products to its authorized dealers and the relationship between the answering OP and the dealer is that of Principal-to-principal basis only as per the dealership agreement executed between the OPs.  As per clause 5 of the agreement, the dealer shall not be deemed to be the agent or representative for any purpose and the dealer shall not describe or represent itself.  It was admitted that vehicle met with an accident on 19.11.2015. The accident took place due to other reasons and not due to any defect in the vehicle. It has been mentioned in the FIR that vehicle was hit by truck from rear which led to severe injuries. The warranty will not applicable to the vehicle in question as per clause 4(4) as enumerated in the owner’s Manual & Service Booklet.  It was submitted that safety features provided in the vehicle does not guarantee complete safety to the passengers but were just preventive measures.  It was submitted that in frontal collision, the crash sensors will detect rapid deceleration, and if the controller judges that the deceleration represents severe frontal clash, the controller will trigger the inflators. It was submitted that front air bags as provided in the vehicle were designed to inflate only in severe frontal collisions.  It has been admitted by the complainant that vehicle was hit from behind and also that the vehicle rolled over to the other side, hence both the conditions are present for non-deployment of air bags.  It was submitted that there was no defect in the vehicle.  It was submitted that in frontal collision, the crash sensors will detect rapid declaration, and if the controller judges that the deceleration represents severe frontal clash, the controller with trigger the inflators. The front air bags as provided in the vehicle are designed to inflate only in severe frontal collisions and deployment of air bag would depend upon the seriousness of the frontal collision on the effective area of the vehicle. Front air bags may not inflate when the impact is absorbed since the collision object moved, vehicle body  deformed, or collision angle was greater than about 30 degrees from the front. It will also not inflate in case of rear impacts, rollovers. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

4.      OP No.2 field separate reply submitting preliminary objections about the jurisdiction, maintainability of complaint, pecuniary jurisdiction, etc. have also been raised.  On merits, it was submitted that complainant and other occupants of the car might have taken MACT claim, which was not disclosed.  It was submitted that there was no defect in the vehicle and if there was manufacturing defect, only the manufacturer is liable and not the dealer.   The driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not impleaded as a proper and necessary party in the complaint i.e. Mr. Sanjay Sehgal. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP.

5.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, the complainant in his evidence has tendered the affidavit Ms. Pallavi Sehgal Ex.CA  and affidavit of Meenu Sehgal as Ex. CB vide which she has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainant, the O.Ps. had also tendered affidavit of Shri Amandeep Singh Ex.R-1 & 3/A, affidavit of K.R. Bali, GM of OP NO.2 Ex. R-2/A and also tendered documents Ex.R-1 and 3/1 to Ex. R-1 & 3/3) and closed its evidence. 

7.      The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Pardeep Panwar, the  learned counsel for the complainant as well as Mr.Salil Sablok,  the learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 3 and Mr. S.R.Bansal, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.  With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

8.                As per the basic averment taken in the complaint and the reply filed thereto including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the basic and foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle as at the time of accident, the airbags did not deploy?

9.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle and not to deploy the air bags at the time of accident on account of deficiency in service by the manufacturer, four persons were died.  At the time of accident if the air bags would be deployed then it saves the life of persons, which are very precious for family members. He further placed on record registration of RC Ex. C-1, driving licence of Sanjay Kumar Sehgal Ex. C-2, insurance policy Ex. C-3, FIR  dated 19.11.2015 Ex. C-4, photographs of vehicle Ex. C-5 and copy of post mortem report  Ex. C-6 to C-9.  The photographs of the vehicle Ex. C-5 shows that airbags did not deploy and vehicle was totally damaged.   The Post Mortem reports Ex.C-6 to C-9 of the passengers also shows that they are expired due to accident.  The claim of the complainant be allowed as prayed for.  

10.    Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 vehemently argued that  present complaint is time barred, without jurisdiction and not maintainable before this Commission.  There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.  It was submitted that in frontal collision, the crash sensors will detect rapid deceleration, and if the controller judges that the deceleration represents severe frontal clash, the controller will trigger the inflators. It was submitted that front air bags as provided in the vehicle were designed to inflate only in severe frontal collisions.  It has been admitted by the complainant that vehicle was hit from behind and also that the vehicle rolled over to the other side, hence both the conditions are present for non-deployment of air bags. The non-opening of the airbags is not attributable to any manufacturing defect.  It was further submitted that in the FIR, the vehicle was hit by truck from rear which led to severe injuries. The warranty will not applicable to the vehicle in question as per clause 4(4) as enumerated in the owner’s Manual & Service Booklet.  It was submitted that safety features provided in the vehicle does not guarantee complete safety to the passengers but are just preventive measures and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.     

11.    Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently argued that complainant and other occupants of the car might have obtained MACT claim.  It was further submitted that there was no defect in the vehicle and if there was manufacturing defect, only the manufacturer is liable and not the dealer.   The complaint be dismissed as prayed for.

12.              As per the oral and documentary evidence produced on the file, it is crystal clear that the offending vehicle had hit the vehicle of the passengers, which was driven by Sanjay Sehgal, family member of complainant. It is not disputed that the vehicle met with an accident.  It is also not disputed that due to accident, four family members were died.  It is also not disputed that FIR No.0619 dated 19.11.2015 under section 279,337, 304A IPC was registered at PS Gharaunda.  When they met with an accident air bags of the car were not deployed and due to this four persons were  died. The vehicle is equipped with front airbags. The front airbags deploy only during frontal impact condition at specified speeds.  In this case, there was total damage seen in the front of the car as per Ex. C-5.   

13.              As per Ex.CA and Ex.CB tendered into evidence by complainant and one family members of the deceased submitted that  Maruti Suzuki India (NEDA) has issued a recall for two of its top-selling cars baleno and swift dzire over faulty air bags control software and faulty fuel filters. While the company will be recalling 75,419/- units of the Baleno for issue with the airbags. 1961 units of the swift dzire will be recall for inspection and replacement of a faulty fuel filter.  The Baleno which have been recall include both petrol and diesel variants and were manufactured between 03.08.2015 and 17.05.2016.  Out of the 75,419 Baleno 15,995 cars are diesel variant that were manufactured between 03.08.2015 and 22.03.2016.

14.              It is equally important to make a reference here that when similar kind of the complaint were sent to the manufacturers and the large number of vehicle, which were sold to the customers were recalled on account of deficiency in the vehicle  with regard to the air bags.

15.              In this background, it can be very safely presumed that since the air bags did not deploy, it can be a case of manufacturing defect. Had the front air bags could be deployed, in that eventuality, the casualties or the injuries which were suffered by the other passengers could have been avoided.   It is very pity that two young boys who were occupant of the vehicle and hardly 19 years  and 21 years have lost their lives in the accident.  The case of the complainant is that the airbags, which were supposed to deploy immediately on the collision, did not deploy at all. The passengers were died on the spot. The complainant thus alleging that a faulty product was sold to the complainant by the O.Ps.,  since while selling the vehicle they claimed that it had world class  safety features, including the  ABS and air bag systems, which protects the passengers in the event of an accident, whereas in fact the air bags were not deployed despite heavy impact by the truck. Air bag deployment system of the vehicle was defective and faulty, due to that four persons  (two young  persons and two were 54 years old) were died on the spot.  Though, there could not be a yardstick or para meters to assess the loss caused to the complainant  and her family members but the loss of love and affection and future earning of the young deaths of  Kunal Sehgal 19 years and Anshu Sehgal 21 years.  Mr. Sanjay and Kiran Sehgal both are 54 years old and had already expired in this accident.  In that eventuality, legislation has to interpret in a very liberal manner.

16.              It is also not out of place to reference here that the vehicle was completely smashed and it was a case of complete total loss of the vehicle apart from four deaths. It is not disputed that the impact was so severe that after hitting the patato laden truck, the car overturned jumped and divider and rolled on to the other side of the highway. In such circumstances, the case itself is a very well supported by the spot inspection photographs which are Ex. C-5 and makes things abundant clear as to how the accident was took place and what is the position of the vehicle after the fatal accident. There could not be strict ratio to assess the just and fair amount of the compensation and certain amount could also be allowed on humanitarian grounds. 

17.              The complaint is not time barred as vehicle met with an accident on 19.11.2015 whereas the complaint filed before the State Commission on  15.11.2017 i.e. within two years of limitation.  The arguments of OPs that the complaint filed by the complainant at State Commission Panchkula having no jurisdiction, is also of no avail as the accident took place at Haryana, which clearly  shows the jurisdiction of this Commission.

18.              As a result thereof with the above said observation and discussion it is crystal clear that it is a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice indulged by the manufacturing of the vehicle and in support of these observations the reliance could be placed upon the celebrated  authorities of Hon’ble National Commission reported as CG Power & Industrial Solutions Vs. Mercedes Benz India Private decided on 11.09.2017, Hyundai Motor India Limited Vs. Shailender Bhatnagar decided on 05.01.2021 in first appeal No.850 of 2020.  As such, the question is answered in the affirmative.

19.              Since death of two young boys which is in fact a heavy loss of love and affection to the parents, which could be compensated in terms of money but still in the interest of justice and equity, it would be fair enough if a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lacs) to Kunal Sehgal S/o Deepak
Sehgal,  Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lacs) to Anshu Sehgal S/o Sanjeev Sehgal each, Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) to  Sanjay S/o Dilbagh, 54 years and Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) to Kiran Sehgal W/o Sanjay Sehgal  for the causing of death of four family members are allowed in favour of the complainant being family member. Thus, the OP No.1 and 3 is directed to pay the above said compensation to the complainant.  No doubt, I cannot award compensation for the loss of income of four persons, but, the mental agony sustained by the family members is really a concern in this particular case.  Since, it is a case of total loss of the vehicle on account of deficiency in rendering services as the air bags of the car have not been deployed at the time of accident, if it could have deployed, the miserable deaths of four members of family could have been easily avoided and it is also considered to be a unfair trade practice on behalf of the OPs as inspite of repeated requests, the complainant has not been compensated in any manner. Though, the large number of vehicles were recalled by the OPs as being the dealers and manufacturers. Hence, a lump sum amount of Rs.Six lacs is allowed for causing the total loss of the vehicle, which met with an fatal accident. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 shall  also pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- as the cost of litigation to complainant.  In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period  of  two months, in that eventuality, the complainant would be entitled to get the interest @ 9% per annum on the above said amount from the date of accident till realization.   It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. 

November 18th, 2021                                                        Ram Singh Chaudhar,                                                                                                      Judicial Member                                                                                                                 Addl.Bench             

S.K.