Haryana

Ambala

CC/33/2017

Harvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Udhyog Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Yadvinder Singh

22 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	33 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	25.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	22.06.2018

                                                                                          

Harvir Singh S/o Sh.Thakur Singh, R/o 1236/11, Badshahi Bagh Colony, Ambala City, Tehsil and District Ambala.

                                                                                    ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Maruti Udhyog Ltd., Gurgaon, through its General Manager.

2.       Eakansh Wheels, Tepla, Ambala through its Manager.

                                                                                     ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

BEFORE:             SH. D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

 

For the Parties:     Mr.D.S.Chhillar, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Mr.S.R.Bansal, Adv., for the Op No.1.                        

                             Mr.U.S.Chauhan, Adv., for the Op No.2.

 

ORDER

(D.N.Arora, President)

 

1.                          Brief facts of the case that the complainant had purchased a vehicle make SWIFT ZDI (with air-bags) on 26.03.2013 from the OP No.1 and the same was registered vide registration No.HR 01 AG 0713. The son of the complainant namely Khushmeet Singh alongwith his friend Riya Tali were returning from Rajpura on 24.04.2016 at slow speed and its correct side. When they reached at Partap Factory near village Bapraur on N.H.-1 (G.T.Road) a car make Tata Manza which came from Rajpura side at a very high speed overtook the car and hit the left side of vehicle (swift car) and the vehicle got imbalanced and hit the divider. Thereafter, the vehicle jumped over the divider and hit the truck coming from opposite side i.e. Ambala side, rolled four times and stopped on the service lane. After striking the vehicle with divider and then truck, the air bags of the vehicle did not open and as a result the son of the complainant died due to technical and manufacturing defect. The friend of the son of the complainant namely Riya Tuli got injured and she was admitted in A.P.Jain, Civil Hospital, Rajpur thereafter, she was referred to GMCH, Chandigarh. The complainant informed the surveyor of insurance company and then Op No.2 about the accident. After inspection, total loss of Rs.4,15,167/- had been approved by the insurance company. But if the air bags would open, the life of the complainant’s son would be saved but due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the air bags did not open. This act and conduct amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          The Op No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections such as no jurisdiction, no cause of action, bad for mis-joinder of parties and suppressed the material facts. It is submitted that OP No.2 is an independent entity having its own MOA and carry out business on their own invoice & sale certificate. The Op No.1 does not sell its products to any individual under its invoice or sale certificate. The Op No.1 sells its products to its authorized dealers and the relationship between the OP No.1 and the dealer is that of Principal-to-Principal basis as per the dealership agreement executed between the Ops. As per clause 5 of the dealership agreement, the dealer should not be deemed to be the agent or representative for any purpose and the dealer should not describe or represent itself as such. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 24.04.2016 and the warranty for the said vehicle stood violated as per clause 4(4) as enumerated in the Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet which clearly states that “Clause 4(4): This warranty shall not apply to any repairs or replacement required as a result of accidents or collision”. The safety features provided in the vehicle does not guarantee complete safety to the passengers. The passengers have to follow the safety instructions provided in the owner’s manual. The vehicle in question was not sent to any authorized workshop of the Op No.1 after the accident and no survey report has also been placed on record that the air bags did not inflate. The Op No.1 was not privy to the communication between the complainant & Insurance Company and the complainant & Op No.2. The complainant himself gave his consent for settling the claim for an amount of Rs.4,15,167/- and the claim of the complainant had been settled in full and final, therefore, the complainant could not raise any claim against the OP No.1. The complainant neither entered into any contract for sale of goods nor hired any service for consideration with the Op No.1. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                          The Op No.2 did not file the written statement and accepted the written statement filed by the OP No.1 vide a separate statement dated 08.06.2017.

4.                          In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-X alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 & C/8-A to C8/G and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 has made a separate statement that their written statement may be read as their evidence and closed the evidence.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully and minutely.

6.                          Admittedly, the complainant purchased a vehicle make SWIFT ZDI (with air-bags) on 26.03.2013 from the OP No.1. The vehicle met with an accident on 24.04.2016 due to striking the vehicle which was driven by the son of the complainant by a Tata Manza near village Bapraur on N.H.-1 (G.T.Road) which came from Rajpura side at a very high speed and the vehicle got imbalanced and hit the divider. Thereafter, the vehicle jumped over the divider and hit the truck coming from opposite side i.e. Ambala side, rolled four times and stopped on the service lane. The grievance of the complainant is that after striking the vehicle with divider and then truck, the air bags of the vehicle did not open and as a result the son of the complainant died due to technical and manufacturing defect.

7.                          On the other hand, the Op submitted that the warranty for the said vehicle stood violated as per clause 4(4) as enumerated in the Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet which clearly states that “Clause 4(4): This warranty shall not apply to any repairs or replacement required as a result of accidents or collision”. The safety features provided in the vehicle does not guarantee complete safety to the passengers. The passengers have to follow the safety instructions provided in the owner’s manual. The Op further submitted that vehicle in question was not sent to any authorized workshop of the Op No.1 after the accident and no survey report has also been placed on record that the air bags did not inflate.

8.                          The basic question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the Air bags in the said car got deployed at the time of accident or not and whether the inbuilt security mechanism involving Air bags functioned properly. The complainant stated at one place in his complaint that the safety balloons did not inflate to secure the life of his son, whereas at other place, he mentioned that there was manufacturing defect in the safety bags. The case of the OPs is that the Air bag mechanism did function as provided in the car, but it may or may not be sufficient to save the life of a person.

9.                          No technical evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove that the said Air bags in the car did not deploy at all when the alleged collision took place. No technical expert such as an automobile engineer was engaged by the complainant to inspect the car immediately after the accident and examined whether the Air bag had actually deployed or not. In fact, no technical expert was consulted by the complainant at any point of time before filing the complaint. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Smt. Brijesh Saxena & Ors. Vs. Skoda Auto A.S. & Ors. decided on 19.12.2014 passed by Hon’ble National Commission . The relevant part is as under:-

“In this regard, OP-1 have produced literature on the working of the Air bag System as taken from the website www.autoevolution.com, which says as follows:-

The first stage of the air bag deployment is the accident itself. The collision, be it frontal or lateral, activates an array of sensors in the vehicle, including accelerometers, impact sensors, side pressure sensors, brake pressure sensors, gyroscopes and seat occupancy sensors.

All these sensors are in intimate connection with the ACU (Air bag Control Unit), the very brain of the air bag system. The unit decides if and how to deploy the air bags. When the ACU detects that the deployment threshold has been reached, it initiates the inflation stage.

Air bag deployment As the compressed air system would have been impractical and quite inefficient, engineers came up with an idea quite similar to the working principle of the solid rocket booster. Each air bag incorporates a pyrotechnic device, known as an initiator or electric match, consisting of an electrical conductor cocooned in combustible material. A current pulse heats up the conductor, which in turn ignites the combustible material. This igniter triggers the chemical reaction that actually fills the nylon fabric air bag with gas.

The large volume of gas then forces the air bag out of the steering wheel and/or dashboard at a speed of up to 200 mph or 322 kph, the whole process taking about 0.04 seconds. Considering that the blink of an eye is approximated at 0.2 seconds, one could say it's quite a speedy process.

The last stage of the air bag process is the deflation, which occurs almost immediately after the inflation is completed. The gas escapes through special vents, which also prevent the occupants from suffering major impact injuries. Another effect of the deflation is the release of dust-like particles, mostly cornstarch and talcum powder, that are used to lubricate the air bag. ”

10.                        The complainant has also relied upon the survey report (Annexure C-7) and photographs (Annexure C/8-A to C/8-G), the survey report is assessment of the loss of the vehicle but the surveyor has not clarified that the air bag did not deploy at the time of alleged accident. After perusal of the photograph (Annexure C/8-A), it reveals that there is no direct frontal collision with the other vehicle. We observe that the 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. The complainant has also relied up on the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission titled as Commercial Centre Jasola, New Delhi vs. Leela Shu & Anr.  decided on 25.04.2016 in Revision Petition No.1014 of 2016 wherein it has been mentioned that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21 Automobile- No fault or deficiency in the vehicle –Damage caused to vehicle due to accident –During accident Air Bags installed in vehicle did not deploy- Driver, wearing seat belt, was able to save his life- Compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by State Commission –A person spent huge amount to save his life but this case clearly indicates that complainant was taken for a ride- Customers think that their lives would be saved because they are armed with Air Bags –Opposite party/Hyundai Motors India Ltd. is collecting crores of rupees from innocent customers throughout country on pretext of life saving Air Bags-This is a very serious mater and 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 –Revision petition dismissed with costs due to mental harassment and agony. The facts of the abovesaid judgment are not identical to the present case.

11.                        In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle for which he may be held entitled for any compensation from the OPs.

12.                        The consumer complaint is, therefore, without any merit and the same is ordered to be dismissed.

13.                        A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced on: 22.06.2018               Member                President

                                                                                      DCDRF, Ambala