Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2021 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainants have filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that the complainant No.1 being as proprietor of M/s.Shivangi Knitwears, Ludhiana had purchased one new Verna CRDi Ex 106 BSIV bearing Chassis No. MALCU41ULDM132897*G, Engine No.D4FBDU320483 manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 from Opposite Party No.2 vide bill dated 10.10.2013 for Rs.9,82,568/- having RC No.PB-10-EL-9828. At the time of its purchase, the Opposite Parties told that this vehicle contained all the safety systems to protect the life of the driver as well as other occupants sitting therein. Further alleges on 16.08.2017 at about 5 AM when Anil Kumar Jain husband of complainant No.1 was driving the vehicle in question, said vehicle got fired of its own and the fire was so high that Anil Kumar could not save himself inspite of his best efforts to stop the car and he was taken to Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana where on 17.08.2017 said Anil Kumar Jain husband of complainant No.1 died. It is pertinent to mention over here that at the time of driving the vehicle in question, Anil Kumar Jain was having valid and effective driving license. The body of deceased was subject to postmortem who confirmed the death due to fire injuries. The vehicle in question was having a manufacturing defects due to which it got fire itself and due to this reason, the husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 and 3 died. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties to make good the loss, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainants. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.19 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum as compensation to the complainants on account of mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainants due to their unwarranted and unethical acts and conduct and on account of deficiency in services as stated above.
3. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that first of all the present complaint filed by the complainants is time barred as it was filed after four years from the date of its sale. Further alleges that the complainant has alleged defect in the car and hence the technical expert opinion from appropriate laboratory ought to have been obtained prior to institution of the present complaint. It is well established principal of consumer law that, where the complainant alleges a defect in the goods, in the present case the car, which can not be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, and in the absence of any such report of appropriate laboratory or technical expert, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. The complainants have failed to produce any material to substantiate its allegations to prove manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. The claim of the complainants is based only on averments made in the affidavit and without any corroborative evidence, which can not be allowed and the allegations levelled by the complainant that there was a manufacturing defect is completely baseless and should be dismissed. On merits, Opposite Party No.1 took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant against the answering Opposite Party is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and has been filed solely with the intention to cause un-warranted and uncalled harassment to the answering Opposite Party. The complainant has alleged that the car had some manufacturing defects because of which it caught fire, but answering Opposite Party is not liable for manufacturing defect, if any as the same is liability of the manufacturer. The answering Opposite Party was an authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1 and it deals just with the sale and after sale services of the cars and hence, it is prayed that the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 may please be dismissed.
5. In order to prove their case, the complainants have tendered into evidence the affidavits Ex.PA alongwith copies of documents Ex.P1 to Ex.C10, Ex.P4A and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainants.
6. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OP1/2 and similarly, Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.RA2 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions of Opposite Party No.1 and also gone through the documents placed on record.
8. Ld.counsel for the Complainants as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statement respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainants is that due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, it caught fire and due to this, Anil Kumar Jain husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 and 3 expired and this loss can not be compensated in the shape of money, but the complainants have claimed the compensation from the Opposite Parties for their negligence and deficiency in service. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainants on the ground that the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and this complaint deserves dismissal on this lone ground.
9. The first point of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the present complaint is time barred as the car in question was sold on 06.10.2013 by Opposite Party No.2 and the present complaint has been filed in October, 2017 a lapse of about 4 years, but we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of Opposite Party No.1 because the cause of action arose to the complainants when the incident occurred to the car in question i.e. on 16.08.2017 which falls within two years as stipulated under the Consumer Protection Act and hence, on this ground, the complaint filed by the complainants is well within time. On merits, we have thoroughly perused the documents placed on record by the Opposite Parties. In the FIR dated 18.08.2017 lodged with P.S.Ladowal, District Ludhiana Ex.P4 it has been clearly mentioned that as per the statements of the persons on the spot who seen the burning of the car in question, it suddenly caught fire and in this incident, Anil Jain husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 and 3 died succumbing the burn injuries. In the Medical Report issued by Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana (Ex.P4A) dated 5.9.2017 it has been clearly mentioned that it is a case of 90% of thermal flame burn deep 3rd degree and internal injury and sudden cardiopulmonary arrest. Copy of the death certificate is placed on record, copy of post mortem report is Ex.P6, and in the post mortem report it has clearly been mentioned by the Authorised Doctor of Hospital: Cause of death: In this case, my opinion cardio respiratory arrest hypovolemic shock due to burn injury. All injury antermortem. Sufficient to cause death. All these aforesaid documents produced by the complainants are sufficient to prove that the car caught fire when it was been driven by Anil Jain, husband of complainant No.1. Further contention of the complainant No.1 is that after the death of her husband (who was 52 years old at the time of accident) and there was no male person in her home except two minor children (i.e. complainants No.2 and 3) who could proceed with the matter regarding taking some expert opinion about the manufacturing defect in the car in question. Moreover, in the sudden death of her husband, she was not in a sense for few months. In such a situation, in our view, in the presence of such aforesaid sufficient evidence which proves with naked eye that the car in question might have caught fire due to some defect in it and for that Opposite Party No.1-Hyundai must have to compensate the complainants because the only bread earner (Anil Kumar Jain) husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 and 3 died in that incident. On this count, the Complainants pray before this District Consumer Commission to pay Rs.19 lakh alongwith interest as compensation to the complainants on account of mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainants due to their unwarranted and unethical acts and conduct and on account of deficiency in services, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of such extent appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainants are awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakh and we award the same accordingly.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Opposite Party No.1-Hyundai Motor India to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.5 lakh (Rupees five lakhs only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 04.10.2017 till its actual realization. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party No.1-Hyundai Motors within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana. All applications pending before this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
11. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
