IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 27th day of June, 2018
Filed on 19.01.2017
Present
1. Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim , BA,LLM (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.19/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
1. Sri.Mohanan K.P. (Died) 1. M/s Renault India Pvt.Ltd
S/o Parameswaran (R I P L), Head office,
10/149, Karyattu House, ASV Ramana Towers,
Thirunallor.P.O., 37-38, 4th Floor,
Cherthala- 688541 Venkatanarayana Road,
2. Shini.N.S. W/o Mohanan T.Nagar, Chennai-600017
3. Aswin Mohan S/o Mohanan
4. Aparna Mohan D/o Mohanan 2. M/s T.V.Sundaram
(By Adv.P.Anuroop) Iyengar & Sons Pvt.Ltd,
Renault Alappuzha,
NH 47, M.O Ward,
Thiruvambady Jn.,
Alappuzha-688001
(By Adv.Geetha Job)
ORDER
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
This case based on the complainant filed by Sri.Mohanan K.P. against two opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. During the course of the proceedings the complainant died. He was therefore substituted by his legal heirs. The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant had purchased a Renault KWID motor car from the 2nd opposite party. The on road price of the vehicle is Rs.4,33,769/-. At the time of purchase of the vehicle the opposite parties assured that the vehicle has airbag system which protects the driver of the vehicle in the event of accident. While so the car met with an accident on 8.11.2016 and the front portion of the motor car was fully damaged. Whereas the airbag which was supposed to deploy immediately on the collision did not deploy. The complainant who was driven the car at the time of the accident sustained severe injuries. The complainant was hospitalised with fractures of ribs and other bodily injuries. The opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice, by projecting the safety features of their vehicle to be amongst the best in the market, whereas in fact they were not so and had miserably failed in reducing the impact of the collision. According to the complainant the opposite parties made false claims with respect to the safety features of the vehicle, only with a view to promote their sale and thereby indulged into deceptive trade practices. The opposite parties made the complainant to believe that the airbags deployed in the said vehicle would work in the event of a severe head on collision, as the censors of the air bag, are situated in the front side of the vehicle, which upon a severe frontal collision send a trigger to the air bags situated inside the vehicle and as a result, the air bags would protect the driver. The object of providing air bags in a car is to reduce the risk of injuries to the driver, in the event of a collision involving the front portion. The cars laden with safety features as air bags carry a higher price as compared to cars without such features, meaning thereby that the complainant was suffered an additional price for availing in such a top segment vehicle. The opposite parties falsely represented that the vehicle was in a particular standard, by projecting the safety features of their vehicle to be amongst the best in the market, whereas in fact it is not so and had miserably failed to protect the safety of the driver. The opposite parties made the complainant to believe that particular segment vehicle subjected to stringent tests of international standards, but the said representation was false as would be evident from the fact that the air bag deployment system of the vehicle was defective and faulty. The complainant believes that the said safety features of the vehicle, only with a view to promote their sales and thereby indulged into deceptive trade practices. A faulty product was sold to the complainant by the opposite parties, whereas in fact the front air bag is not giving any result. It is also due to the total failure and non-functioning of the systems of the car and in view of the equipments not acting according to the specifications. The complainant bonafide believes that opposite parties falsely represented that the said vehicle is in a particular standard and quality. There after the complainant on 24-11-2016 issued a lawyers notice to the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party in their reply notice admitted the fact that the airbag fitted in the vehicle had not deployed and the reason mention is that “the deceleration force generated from the accident was not significant to trigger the air bag fitted in the vehicle. The opposite parties had not complied the demand in the notice. The act of the opposite parties caused much mental agony to the complainant and hence filed this compliant.
2. Notice was served to the opposite parties. 1st opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. 2nd opposite party did not appear before the Forum hence set exparte.
3. The 1st opposite party would content in the version that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is only looking to tarnish the image of the 1st opposite party company which is a subsidiary of Groupe Renault, a French multi-national automobile manufacturer having operations in more than 160 countries in the world. The facts stated in the complaint are contrary to the real facts of the case. The complainant is guilty of stating untrue facts in order to suit his case. At the outset, it is a matter of fact that the complainant had decided to purchase the Renault Kwid fully knowing that the car was the most awarded car in its class. Since the Renault Kwid was launched in September 2015, it has received more awards in one year than any of its market competitors including the prestigious Autocar India Car of the Year award for 2016 as well as the award for ‘Best Hatchback of the Year 2016’ and also NDTV Car of the year 2016 as well as numerous awards by leading Auto magazines and news channels. It is indeed surprising that the complainant is unnecessarily finding fault with a car which has been certified excellent in all aspects. The 1st opposite party had informed the complainant herein that a car with and air bag is always safer than a car without an air bag, that there is only one air bag for the driver and not for the front seat passenger and that the air bag would deploy only on certain conditions and complainant being satisfied with the said features on his own accord and free will, purchased the aforesaid vehicle. The complaint is admitted except for the averment that the front air bag which was supposed to deploy immediately in the collusion did not deploy at all despite of heavy impact by KSRTC Bus. It is a matter of record that unlike the allegation of the complainant herein, that deceleration force generated from the impact of the KSRTC bus on the aforesaid vehicle was not significant to trigger the said air bag. It is submitted herein that the complainant ought to understand the circumstances as to when an air bag deploys. It is a matter of fact that just because there is frontal impact by another vehicle an air bag need not deploy, rather there has to be sufficient force in the impact. It is common knowledge that the main purpose of using a vehicle which is fitted with an air bag as claimed by manufacturers all over the world is to prevent death. In the instant case, the complainant only suffered injuries. The complaint is false and vehemently denied. It is submitted herein that the Renault Kwid has been subjected to the most stringent tests including deployment of air bags and had passed all the tests which had been accredited as per international standards. In such circumstances, it cannot be alleged that the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practices. It is totally wrong to say that the opposite parties have projected the safety features of the vehicle only with a view to promote their sales and thereby indulge in deceptive trade practices. It is indeed strange and surprising that the complainant is unnecessarily finding fault with the car which has been made by the 1st opposite party and has been certified excellent in all aspects and it is ridiculous to state such averments when the opposite party company is exporting the Kwid to a growing number of markets and is considered to be one of the selling cars world-wide. The complainant is unnecessarily attempting to fleece the 2nd opposite party by stating unnecessary complaints. If as alleged by the complainant that the Renault Kwid was not certified as safe, the 1st opposite party would not have exported the said vehicle to other countries. It is indeed surprising to note that the complainant herein is complaining about paying an additional price for having the safety feature of the air bags in his vehicle only because it did not deploy. It is also surprising to note that the complainant considers the aforesaid vehicle to be a “top segment vehicle” when the Renault Kwid is the cheapest available car from the Renault stable being sold in India. It is submitted herein that the aforesaid vehicle was examined and vehicle examination report was prepared by an expert, one Vimesh Kumar dated 02-12-2016 wherein the air bag system was investigated thoroughly and the air bag computer and seat belt mounting buckle were found to be in possession and no accident damages were noticed and further, the passenger cum cabin components was found to be in possession and there was no deformation found due to the accident and further the frontal impact caused in the accident was detected by the air bag computer. In short, the air bag system was found to be functional and free of defects before the accident and the air bag system components were working properly and were free of faults during the accident. In the light of the above findings it is evidently clear that the complainant who drove in a rash and negligent manner is blatantly attempting to cover up his faults and is trying to put the blame on the 1st opposite party. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. In view of the above pleadings the following points arise for consideration:-
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.
(3) Reliefs and costs.
5. The complainant died during the course of the proceedings. Hence his wife and children were impleaded as additional complainants No.2 to 4. The additional 2nd complainant was examined as PW1 and got marked Ext.A1 to Ext.A15 documents. The surveyor who inspected the vehicle (AMVI cherthala) has been examined as PW2, S.I of Police, Traffic, cherthala has been examined as PW3. Another witness was examined as PW4. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on the side of the opposite parties.
6. Ext.A1 is the copy of invoice dated 30-06-2016. Ext.A2 is the copy of RC bearing No.KL-32 J-9695 Renault Kwid. Ext.A3 is the copy of Tax receipt dated 16-06-2014. Ext. A4 is the copy of insurance policy. Ext.A5 is the copy of lawyers notice dated 24-11-2016. Ext.A6 is the postal receipt. Ext.A7 is the AD card. Ext.A8 is the copy of reply notice dated 21-12-2016. Ext.A9 is the letter issued by the senior post master T.Nagar. Ext.A10 is the vehicle airbag inspection report and A10 (a) are the photographs. Ext.A11 is FIR. Ext.A12 is the Mahazor. Ext.A13 is the find report. Ext.A14 is the report of Inspector of a motor vehicle involved in an accident. Ext.A15 is the discharge summary.
Point No. I & II
It is an admitted case that car driven by the 1st complainant hit on the front portion by a KSRTC Bus. In Ext.A10 report it stated that, “the vehicle sustained heavy damages in the front portion. Even though the front portion sustained heavy damages the air bag was not opened and due to this the driver and passenger sustained severe injuries on chest portion. It is further opined in Ext.A10 that the air bag was not opened because of some mechanical failure to the control unit of the airbag”. PW2 who prepared Ext.A10 report has deposed that since the collision was a frontal and in such collision the air bag should be deployed. PW3 who prepared Ext.A12 mahazor has deposed that the accident was caused due to the over speed and the engine assembly of the car was fully damaged. PW4 has also opined that the air bag should have opened. In view of the above materials on record it is clear that the air bag was not deployed at the time of accident as vehicle suffers from imperfection. On perusal of the Ext.A10 (a) photographs coupled with Ext.A10 inspection report would indicate that the vehicle had a frontal accident. The photographs clearly show that the accident, resulted in damage to the front portion of the car was a severe accident. Even in such an accident the air bag of the car not functioned at all. Hence we are of the opinion that there was some defect in the vehicle.
The accident occurred within 4 and odd months of its purchase and that too within the warranty period. In view of the reasons stated above it is clear that these act of the opposite parties in selling the car by making the complainant believe that the air bag will operate and rescue the driver in the event of a head on collision is an unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation. The complainant claimed for refund of the price of the car. But in the instant case from the documents produced clearly show that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving and not because of any inherent defect of the vehicle except the defective airbags. So we cannot direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the vehicle. But at the same it is true that the airbags which is one of the features of the car as assured by the opposite parties had not functioned. The documents produced by the complainant would not show that the complainant died not due to the direct impact of the injuries sustained, during the car accident. Even according to PW1 the cause of death of his father is cardiac failure.
The compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant. The compensation should be adequate and reasonable. In the circumstance we are inclined to allow the complaint in part. The points answered accordingly.
Point No.3
In the result the complaint stands allowed in part. The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The prayer to refund the price of the car stands dismissed.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum and costs of Rs.5,000/-from opposite party 1 & 2 jointly and severally and from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 27th day of June, 2018.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Sd/-Sri.E.M.MuhammedIbrahim (President):
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Aswin Mohan (Witness)
PW2 - M.A.Thomson (Witness)
PW3 - Shereef (Witness)
PW4 - Jose Antony (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of invoice dated 30-06-2016
Ext.A2 - Copy of RC bearing No.KL-32 J-9695 Renault Kwid
Ext.A3 - Copy of Tax receipt dated 16-06-2014
Ext.A4 - Copy of Insurance policy
Ext.A5 - Copy of lawyers notice dated 24-11-2016
Ext.A6 - Postal receipt
Ext.A7 - AD Card
Ext.A8 - Copy of reply notice dated 21-12-2016
Ext.A9 - Letter issued by the senior post master, T.Nagar
Ext.A10 - Vehicle airbag inspection report
Ext.A10(a) - Photographs
Ext.A11 - FIR
Ext.A12 - Mahazor
Ext.A13 - Find report
Ext.A14 - Report of Inspector of a motor vehicle involved in an accident
Ext.A15 - Discharge summary
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
