BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NOs. 1760/2017 & 1981/2017
APPEAL NO. 1760/2017
Advaith Motors Pvt. Ltd., 3-68/1, NH-17, Kuntikan, Derebail, Mangalore 575 006, Represented by its Director Sri B. Radhakrishna Gowda. Also at : No.12, Shama Rao Compound, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. (By Sri N.S. Satyanarayana Gupta) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Sri Prakash Krishna Rao, S/o Sri U. Krishna Rao, Aged about 64 years, Residing at Nagi Towers, 3-B, 3rd Floor, Opp. Circuit House, Kadri Hills, Mangalore 575004. (By Dr. P. Ravi Shankar) | …… Respondent/s |
2. | Mr. Bo Shin Seo, CEO & Managing Director, Hyundai Motors India Ltd., 2nd, 5th & 6th Floor, Corporate One, Baani Building, Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi 110 025. (By Sri N.D. Jaya Kumar) | |
APPEAL NO. 1981/2017
Mr. Bo Shin Seo, CEO & Managing Director, Hyundai Motors India Ltd., 2nd, 5th & 6th Floor, Corporate One, Baani Building, Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi 110 025. (By Sri S.H. Prashanth) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Sri Prakash Krishna Rao, S/o Sri U. Krishna Rao, Aged about 66 years, Residing at Nagi Towers, 3-B, 3rd Floor, Opp. Circuit House, Kadri Hills, Mangalore 575004. (By Dr. P. Ravi Shankar) | …… Respondent/s |
2. | Advaith Motors Pvt. Ltd., 3-68/1, NH-17, Kuntikan, Derebail, Mangalore 575 006, Represented by its Authorized Signatory. (By Sri N.S. Satyanarayana Gupta) | |
COMMON ORDER
BY SRI MR. RAVISHANKAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Both these appeals have arisen out of the one order dt.26.07.2017 passed in CC.Nos.238/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dakshina Kannada. The appellant/Opposite Party No.2 has preferred the Appeal No.1760/2017 and the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred Appeal No.1981/2017. Hence, both these appeals are clubbed together and being disposed-of by a common order.
2. We shall refer to the parties as per the ranking before the District Commission.
3. The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder;
The complainant is the owner of the Hyundai Fluidic Verna Car bearing registration No.KA-19-MC-5246 which was delivered by Opposite Party No.1 in the month of May 2012. The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging manufacturing defect found in the vehicle which caught fire when he parked the vehicle in his garage. The accident took place on 15.08.2014 at about 7.00 p.m. Immediately the fire brigade people came and extinguished the fire. After, that the investigation was undergone to find out the reason for unnatural fire. The Surveyor appointed by the insurance company has assessed the cause of fire was unknown even the specialists on the side of Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 also visited the spot and have not trace out the cause of the fire. Anyhow, it is an admitted fact that the vehicle parked in the garage and it was caught fire without any reason. Hence, the complainant alleged manufacturing defect and filed a complaint before the District Commission for reimbursement of the entire amount paid towards the car.
4. Being a beneficiary of the insurance policy the insurance company have settled the IDV value to the tune of Rs.4,30,000/- plus Salvage value of Rs.1,60,000/- totally Rs.5,90,000/- as final settlement. Accordingly, the complainant settled a claim and insisted for compensation from appellants for selling defective vehicle to the complainant. For which the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 jointly & severally to pay a balance amount of price of the vehicle at Rs.3,55,000/- to the complainant with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization along with compensation and costs.
5. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants/Opposite Parties are in appeals. Heard the arguments from both sides.
6. On going through the memorandum of appeal filed by both parties, certified copy of the order and the Survey Report produced before the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that on 15.08.2014 at about 7.00 p.m. the vehicle of the complainant caught fire with it was parked in the garage of the complainant. After the fire, the investigation was conducted by both the insurance company and Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 wherein they have not pointed out any reason for fire in the car. But the insurance surveyor had pointed out there is a black spots on the external electric box on the side of the wall of the parking area and it was noticed that there was some burn marks found in the wiring of the electric box, hence, suggested that it might be the cause of the fire. The experts who have investigated the fire accident on the side of Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 have suggested that there was no any manufacturing defect or there is no any evidence to show that there is any short circuit in the internal circuit of the electric wire. Hence, submits that there is no any manufacturing defect in the vehicle sold to the complainant.
7. The learned counsel for appellant in Appeal No.1760/2017 vehemently argued that the complainant had settled the claim by virtue of insurance, the Insured Declared Value to the tune of Rs.4,30,000/- plus salvage value of Rs.1,60,000/-. Apart from that the complainant is claiming compensation from the appellants which is not tenable and the complainant had settled the claim, hence, he cannot again reclaim the compensation from the appellants. Moreover we are only a dealer and not liable to pay any compensation, hence, prayed to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
8. We are of the opinion that the complainant had settled the claim by virtue of the policy as because he had paid the premium towards coverage of fire accident, but, the said settlement was not due to manufacturing defect. We are of the opinion that it is clearly established that without any reason fire was caught to the car means it is definitely a manufacturing defect as because both the Surveyor and Investigator have not concluded the reason for fire in the car. Hence, it is a clear case of manufacturing defect.
9. The learned counsel respondent No.1 before this Commission has cited en-number of reports and illustrations which show that the number of cars was recalled by Hyundai Company as those cares were caught on fire. The said illustrations are sufficient to held that the vehicle sold by Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 was a defective one. He further argued that the complainant had given an endorsement stating that no claim will be made after settlement of the IDV from the insurance company. Under these grounds also the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. The said arguments are not accepted as because it is again the claim is settled by virtue of the policy and premium paid and we noticed that the Opposite Parties have given a warranty for replacement of the vehicle or repair of the vehicle if any defect found. But in this complaint, the insurance company had took up the scrap of the vehicle by paying Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant. Hence, acting under the provisions of Sec. 82 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as per the ‘Product Liability’ the manufacturer of the vehicle is liable to pay the amount. Hence, excluding the said scrap amount of Rs.1,60,000/-, the Opposite Party No.1 being appellant in Appeal No.1981/2017 is liable to pay the balance amount to the complainant along with compensation awarded by the District Commission. As such interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is disposed of.
The appellant in Appeal No.1981/2017 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization along with compensation and costs as directed by the District Commission.
The amount in deposit in these appeals shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant/s.
Keep the original copy of the order in Appeal No.1760/2017 and the copy of the same in the connected appeal.
Forward free copies to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
