BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 68 of 2015
Date of institution: 18.02.2015
Date of Decision: 04.02.2016
Arvinder Singh son of Tirlochan Singh resident of House No.357, Phase-6, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director ASV Raman Towers 37-38, Venkatnarayan Road, T- Nagar 600017 Chennai.
2. Managing Director Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. ASV Raman Towers 37-38, Venkatnarayan Road, T- Nagar 600017 Chennai.
3. Bhagat Car Pvt. Ltd., C-19, Industrial Area, Phase-1, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.
(Name of OP No.3 deleted from the array of the OPs vide order dated 10.04.2015).
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Sandeep Dhiman, counsel for the complainant.
None for OP No.1 and 2.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
- to replace the car with new one or refund Rs.8,95,667/- with interest @ 12% per annum and also to pay damages of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of injury, suffering of pain etc. and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
The case of the complainant is that he purchased new Sunny SV Diesel car from OP No.3 and paid
Rs.8,28,077/- and Rs.67,590/- vide receipts dated 27.05.2013. The vehicle was purchased by him for his personal use. The vehicle was having warranty of 24 months or 50,000 KMs whichever comes first. The vehicle was registered with the Registering Authority Mohali vide No.PB-65-U-8021. OP No.1 and 2 thereafter closed its agency with OP No.3 and the service was got done by the complainant from Hind Motors Chandigarh and Berkley, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Panchkula. On 24.09.2014 when the complainant was driving the car, the car met with an accident with i-20 car. At that time the air bags of the car of the complainant did not work. At the time of purchase of the car, the complainant was told that this car is having two front air bags and they will open in case of accident. Due to non opening of air bags, the father of the complainant who was sitting on the front seat alongwith the complainant got injuries on his forehead and chest and also mother of the complainant received injuries for which they were taken to Civil Hospital, Mohali where they got treatment. The complainant got repaired his car from Hind Motors, Chandigarh and made payment of Rs.2,24,050/- vide receipt dated 30.12.2014. Thus the complainant has been sold defective car. The complainant requested the OPs number of times to replace the defective car but inspite of issuance of legal notice the OPs have not taken any steps for the same. With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. The OP No.1 and 2 in the preliminary objections of the written statement have pleaded that the complaint is frivolous and without substance. The dispute in the present complaint is not a manufacturing defect. OP No.1 is not privy to repair thereof and to process of indemnifying complainant towards costs thereof. The accident was not occurred due to any defect in the vehicle. The complainant has the remedy against the person with whose car the car of the complainant collided. The complainant has not supported his averment with opinion or report by any mechanical expert or automotive expert that the airbags did not deploy due to any defect. It was specifically stated in the instructions manual that the airbags does not deploy in the event of the crash energy is absorbed and/or distributed by the vehicle. The complainant was well informed about the airbag system of the car both orally and through the owner’s manual. Thus, denying any deficiency in service their part, the OP No.1 and 2 have sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and affidavit of Trilochan Singh Ex.CW-1/2, and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-17.
4. The complainant closed his evidence on 02.07.2015 and then the case was adjourned to 16.7.2015. On 16.07.2015 OP Nos.1 and 2 sought adjournment for evidence which was allowed for 03.08.2015 subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Thereafter the OPs neither deposited the costs nor tendered evidence. Ultimately the complaint was posted for arguments on 30.10.2015.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments filed by him as none appeared on behalf of the OPs for filing written arguments or addressing oral arguments.
6. The main issue in the complaint is non opening of the air bags of the car which the complainant has purchased from the OP No.1 and 2 vide invoice dated 27.05.2013 Ex.C-1. As per the complainant, the car met with an accident on 24.09.2014 and due to the impact of the accident the front part of the car got damaged as per photographs Ex.C-6 and C-7. But the air bags did not open causing injuries to co-passengers of the car. Therefore, as per the complainant the defective car has been sold to him by the OPs and the complainant prays for replacement of the car. Denying any defect in the car, as per the OPs there is no defect in the air bags and as per the owners manual the complainant was duly explained the air bag system of the car at the time of its sale. As per the owner’s manual Annexure C-1, the supplemental front impact air bags ordinarily will not inflate in the event of a side impact, rear impact, rollover or lower severity frontal collision.
7. The photographs showing the accidental vehicle relied upon by the complainant show that the impact of the accident was visible on the right hand side of the car. The service history of the car Annexure C-3 attached with the reply duly supported by the affidavit clearly shows that the impact of the accident was not so severe otherwise the airbags would have been inflated by car itself. The radiator was not damaged due to accident and as per service history the radiator was not replaced. Thus, the service history clearly establishes the fact that the air bags were not defective and the OPs have not sold any defective vehicle to the complainant.
8. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has failed to show the injuries suffered by co-passengers due to non opening of air bags at the time of accident. The only document relied upon by the complainant is Ex.C-17 i.e. copy of the OPD card of Jatinder Kaur who visited the hospital on 24.09.2014 vide x-ray No.12523 showing fracture left side clavicle. Perusal of Ex.C-17 in no way reveals the nexus between the accident and the injuries suffered by the patient mentioned in OPD card. Even no expert evidence has been produced by the complaisant in support of his complaint regarding non functioning of air bags. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove his case of defective air bags in the vehicle.
9. In view of above discussion, the complaint being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
February 04, 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
