CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.274/2008
SH. MAYUR BATRA
S/O SH. RAMESH CHANDER BATRA
R/O E-6/2, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S SOUTH CITY MOTORS LTD.
SHOWROOM AT:-
A-38, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044
WORKSHOP AT:-
A-34, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044
- M/S FORD INDIA PVT. LTD.
S.P. KOIL POST, CHENGALPATTU-603 204
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:06.10.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
The case of the complainant is that he is a Chartered Accountant by profession. On 28.02.06 complainant purchased a Ford Endeavour car for a sum of Rs.13,57,000/-, manufactured by OP-2. The said vehicle met with an accident on 08.12.07. The vehicle was taken to the workshop of OP-1 and OP-1 estimated the cost of repairs at Rs.14 lakhs. Complainant has filed a separate complaint for insurance claim for repair of the said vehicle. The impact of the accident was so severe that the entire front portion of the vehicle got badly damaged resulting inter-alia in breaking of front windshield in front of the face of the complainant badly injuring the face and head of the complainant also of the driver. The vehicle had got badly damaged beyond recognition. The injuries were caused due to non-activation of the airbags. OP-2 sold the defective vehicle. In the present complaint, complainant has prayed that OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.69,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. or replace the entire airbag system and also pay compensation and litigation charges.
OP-1 in its reply took the plea that the present complaint is not maintainable in view of order 2 rule 2 of CPC because all the claim should have been filed in the earlier claim petition filed by the complainant and moreover there is no cause of action against OP-1.
OP-2 in its reply took the plea that there was no manufacturing defect. The vehicle had suffered major accident on 08.12.06 and the vehicle had suffered extensive damage and therefore the question of vehicle having technical or manufacturing defect is devoid of any merit.
It is stated that photographs of the vehicle taken for scrutinizing the impact/damage show that the vehicle had slight impact/damage to the front bumper and major part of the impact/damage was on the right front fender and the right front door and also on the bonnet which has subsequently damaged the windscreen. However, the cockpit was not distorted due to the impact. It is stated that if the complainant had driven the vehicle with the prescribed speed limit and maintained proper distance for the truck, the vehicle would not have suffered even the said damage. It is stated that in order to inflate the air bag, there needs to be sufficient frontal impact for the air bags to get activated. From a bare perusal of the photographs, it is clear that there was no damage to the front head lights and the bumper of the vehicle, when collided with the tuck and the same were in good condition with no damage. The impact/damage was only in the nature of cosmetic damages to the bonnet and the windscreen of the vehicle. It indicates that the impact/damage during the accident was not adequate to activate the air bag system and the vehicle did not have the necessary frontal impact to induce the air bags to deploy. So the allegation that the vehicle had a defective air bag activation system is false. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
The grievance of the complainant is that due to the accident, the air bags did not open which resulted into the injuries to the complainant and the driver. The complaint has not filed any evidence to show as to what extent the injuries were suffered by him. Basically in his complaint, complainant has prayed for an award of Rs.69,500/- or direction to replace entire air bag system.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant has filed the complaint before the Hon’ble State Commission against the insurance company and South City Motors regarding deficiency in service. Basically in that complaint it is stated that South City Motors and insurance company after examining the vehicle came to the conclusion that estimate of cost of repairs to the vehicle comes out to Rs.14,00,000/- lakhs however thereafter South City Motors in connivance with the insurance company approved the same for Rs.3 lakhs for carrying out the repairs. It is proved on record that the Hon’ble State commission vide judgment dated 21.01.09 has directed the insurance company to pay complainant the entire value of vehicle in question less 5% depreciation value. Further OP-1 was directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- and to pay entire amount of Rs.4,81,148/- to OP-2 for the repairs of the vehicle meaning thereby the vehicle was declared as totally damaged and the compensation was accordingly awarded by the Hon’ble State Commission. In the case before the Hon’ble State Commission, the complainant has also taken the plea that there was some manufacturing defect. The entire claim was taken into consideration and the vehicle was declared as totally damaged. So once the vehicle has been declared totally damaged and compensation has accordingly been awarded then no separate claim for loss in respect of the air bags or to replace the same. Moreover complainant has not filed any report to show that there was manufacturing defect in the air bags. OP-2 has given explanation about the activation of air bags. No separate complaint lies in respect of in terms of Order 2 rule 2 of CPC.
Keeping in view the above facts, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
