BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 301 of 2022
Date of Institution: 27.04.2022
Date of Order : 27.03.2024
Bhupender Sethi son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of VPO Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa Now at present address Paper Mill Road, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
- R.P. Jhunthra Motors (P) Ltd., Near Minaxi Petrol Pump, N.H. No.9, Hisar road, Sirsa, through its Prop/ Partner/ Auth. Person.
- The Renault Nissan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Manufacturing Unit, Chennai (Tamilnadu) through its Prop/ Partner/ M.D/ Auth. Person. ...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………..PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Rajiv Batra, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that on 11.03.2021 complainant had purchased a vehicle Car Nissan Magnite model Turbo MT XL from the ops’ and same was registered vide registration No. HR-44L-6309. At that time the ops had also assured that this vehicle has two SRS airbags for the safety of the person sitting in the vehicle. That on 05.03.2022 complainant alongwith his brother Ashwani and friends Jony, Sahil residents of Sirsa and one Manpreet Singh resident of Rania were coming from Delhi to Sirsa in the above said vehicle and when they reached near Rohtak Bye Pass, then suddenly an animal came in front of their vehicle and struck into the vehicle due to which the vehicle was damaged very badly but the airbags did not open. It is further averred that all the persons were saved due to their good luck but any mis-happening could be happened. In this way there was a manufacturing defect in the above said vehicle due to which the said airbags were not opened which clearly proves the negligence on the part of ops and it could cause a great human life loss to the complainant and other persons sitting in the car. That on the spot complainant made a video of the damaged car and regarding not opening of the airbags. The complainant also informed the officials of ops’ company who visited at the spot and inspected the vehicle and took the vehicle at Rohtak branch. That such act and conduct on the part of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as ops have failed to provide after sale services to the complainant and thereafter complainant had suffered great mental shock, agony for which he is legally entitled to be compensated. That complainant also got served a legal notice to the ops on 24.03.2022. Hence, this complaint seeking a direction to the ops to replace the above said vehicle with a new one or to return the price of car and also to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and also to pay litigation expenses.
3. On notice, op no.1 appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op has never assured anything about the airbags rather the same are inbuilt by the company. The answering op has sold brand new vehicle to the complainant which is built of best quality from all sides and all the functions and safety features/ systems were functional and running smoothly at the time of sale which was also verified by the complainant himself and also issued a satisfaction note to this effect. It is further submitted that airbags preinstalled in the vehicle consist of brand “Supplemental Restraint System” (SRS) which is by default inbuilt by the manufacturer company and answering op is merely seller of the vehicle which is manufactured by op no.2. That there are certain warnings in regard to the functioning/ operation of the airbags in the vehicle which has to be fulfilled/ taken care off for the proper functioning of the airbags in the vehicle. The answering op has provided best in class services to the complainant and has tried to solve each and every problem of complainant in every possible manner. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Initially none appeared on behalf of op no.2 despite notice and as such op no.2 was proceeded against exparte. Thereafter, op no.2 appeared through counsel by moving application for setting aside the exparte order which was allowed. Op no.2 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objection that complainant has filed this complaint with ulterior motives as he is presently using the car without any defects in question and there is no manufacturing defect in the said car. The two SRS air bags being used in the said car are as per the international standards. SRS means supplemental restraint system. In a car the primary safety restrained system for the safety of the occupant is the seat belt which restrains the occupant in case of a collision or impact then the secondary/ supplementary restraint system are the SRS airbags which deploy in exceptional and high impact but not on low impacts. The two airbags are programmed to get deployed on a certain level of high impact when there is grave danger of the impact causing severe jerk or injury to the occupants of the car. The airbags will get deployed only when the threshold of the programmed impact is crossed. This cannot be construed as manufacturing defect. In high end expensive cars there are eight or more airbags which cover impact from almost every direction. The car in question has just two SRS airbags. It is further submitted that during a crash/ collision vehicles crash sensors provide crucial information to the airbag ECU electronic controller unit, including collision type, angle and severity of impact. Using this information the airbags ECU crash algorithm determines if the crash event meets the criteria for deployment and triggers the various firing circuits to deploy one or more airbag within the vehicle. Typically the decision to deploy an airbag in an event of frontal crash is made within 15 to 20 milliseconds after the onset of the crash and both the driver and passenger airbags are fully inflated within approximately 60-80 milliseconds after the first moment of the vehicle contact. On merits, it is submitted that car has best quality two SRS airbags but only for the safety of the front passengers. The airbags deploy only when a collision of high impact occurs then the sensors activate the airbags. But if the collision is of low impact and the car might be damaged but the airbags will not get activated if the impact is of low intensity and does not reach the threshold level for activation of the airbags. It is further submitted that car collided with cattle and as stated by complainant himself that no passenger was injured. This is ample proof that the collision was not a high intensity collision and no one was injured and the impact was not high enough to activate the opening of the airbags. The cattle fell on the car after hitting the car thus damaging the car but it was not a high impact so there was no danger to the passengers and also due to low impact intensity the air bags did not open. This is a standard operating procedure of airbags and there is no functional defect in the airbags. If the airbags are programmed to open even at low impact collision then it would be a nuisance and also a heavy replacement cost for replacing the opened airbags. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and affidavit of Sh. Sahil as Ex. CW2/A, affidavit of Johan @ Jony Ex. CW3/A, affidavit of Sh. Ashwani Ex. CW4/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12, photographs Ex.C13 to Ex.C15, Pen-drive containing video Ex.C16 and call detail Ex.C17.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Mukesh Kumar Manager as Ex. RW1/A. OP no.2 has tendered owner’s manual Ex.R1 and affidavit of Sh. Vijay Kumar authorized representative as Ex.R2.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. It is own version of the complainant himself that at the time of collision with an animal there were five occupants in the Car in question but none of the occupants received any injury in the said collision. There is also nothing on file to prove the fact that any of the occupants received any injury in said accident caused by animal who came in front of the car and struck into the car. So said fact clearly proves that the impact was not high and was low and as such version of op no.2 that air bags deploy only when a collision is of high impact and then the sensors activate the air bags has full substance. The air bags work as per international standards and if the air bags will open even at low impact collision, then it will cause heavy loss to the owner of the vehicle who would incur heavy cost for its replacement. So the version of op no.2 that airbags will get deployed only when the threshold of the programmed impact is crossed has also substance. Since there was no physical injury to any of the occupants of the car in question, it proves the fact that impact was not severe and as such air bags were not opened as the impact was not as per deployment criteria of the airbags and as such it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. In this regard it is clearly mentioned in the owner’s manual Ex.R1 that 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. Moreover, the complainant in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A for the first time has given improvement version that they all were saved due to wearing of seat belt whereas in the complaint it is no where mentioned/ pleaded that they were wearing seat belt meaning thereby that complainant just to fill up the lacuna left in the complaint has given improvement version first time in his affidavit. So the complainant has failed to prove its case and as such complaint deserves dismissal.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President,
Dated: 27.03.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
