Complaint presented on 23.12.2011
Date of disposal : 28.02.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (NORTH)
@ 2ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.
PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L. : PRESIDENT
THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L. : MEMBER
C.C. No.345/2018
DATED THIS MONDAY THE 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
Mr.V.Gnanasekar,
S/o.Mr.R.A.Velusamy,
2C, Coral Manor,
40-41, 2nd Main Road,
R.A.Puram,
Chennai – 600 028.
.. Complainant. ..Vs..
1.Honda Siel Cars India Ltd.,
Old No.26, New No.46,
Opposite ICICI Bank,
Ambattur Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058.
2.Sundaram Honda,
No.180 Anna Salai Road,
Chennai – 600 006. .. Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.K.Babu
Counsel for 1st opposite party : M/s.Kochhar & Co
Counsel for 2nd opposite party : Dwarakesh Prabhakaran
ORDER
THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of this complaint.
This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No.16/2012. Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.345/2018.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The complainant purchased a High End Honda City V Car, bearing Regn.No.TN 06 BO 0662 which is originally manufactured by the 1st opposite party herein and has been sold to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party who are a reputed dealer dealing with Honda City Cars in the City of Chennai. The total price which the complainant had to pay on road including registration insurance charges was about Rs.10.30 lakhs during April 2010. The complainant received a message dated 17.05.2011 from Coimbatore stating that he has lost a close relative. Therefore he started driving, the car from Chennai in his Honda City V Car. While the complainant was driving in the national highway and nearing Chinna Salem after Kallakurichi at about 5 km, the complainant could notice smoke inside the cabin from bottom side of the arms rest in the middle of the car. The complainant immediately has stopped his car on the side of national highway and the complainant being an Engineer with his little experience also in the automobile field after stopping the car, poured water and tried to cool the area where smoke was coming. At the same time, the complainant could also notice a red hot ball directly under the area where the smoke was coming. The entire car was in flames and in spite of the best efforts by the complainant but also by the few local people who tried to help the complainant on the national highway. In fact the complainant also tried to call 24 hour Honda help line but did not get any response. The 2nd opposite party with great reluctance asked the complainant to contact the nearest Honda dealer. The complainant noticed his friend known as Mr.Kannan driving much behind on the same highway and luckily he could locate them and put them in the said car for them to reach Coimbatore. After putting their family in the said car, the complainant along with his brother Arun went to the nearest Police Station at Chinna Salem and gave a written complaint to the Sub Inspector. In fact when the complainant had contacted the insurance company IFFCO, the have sent a representative for appraising the same. Further very strangely later on when the car was taken to Chennai. The complainant tried to get further materials with regard to the loss, he has suffered was only due to mechanical failure of vehicle of which the complainant had no role to play. Neither the 1st nor the 2nd opposite party showed any interest either in accepting the mistake or replacing the vehicle nor even investigated the whole issue. After nearly 2 months of regular follow up and their own procedural delays the insurance money was paid. In fact the entire money the complainant got from the insurance was paid back to the bank and the loan was paid off. The authorized surprised surveyor of the insurance company Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited visited the car now in the garage of the 2nd opposite party clearly states that the entire fire could have been caused due to short circuit or fuel leakage. The entire problem has arisen only on account of the gross negligence on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay the complainant damages for the mental agony and loss suffered by the complainant and members of his family. Hence this complaint.
2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The present complaint is bad for non-joinder of Insurance Company being a necessary and proper party, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. This Hon’ble Forum do not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complainant. The complaint does not disclose any manufacturing defect as envisaged in section 2 (1) (f) any deficiency in services as defend in section 2(1) (g) of the Act against the answering party. No defect in the engine alleged, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for refund of the cost amount of car. As per the Technical Report Annexure OP1/A, present case is the outcome of an unfortunate event as the complainant’s subject car caught fire and the suspected fire started from right side below passenger cabin and spread towards rear and front side through passenger compartment & underbody of the car. Since the vehicle was burnt completely, hence root cause of fire could not established as per the conclusion of the Technical Expert, therefore, under the aforementioned circumstances, the same cannot be attributed to the negligence of services on the part of answering opposite parties. The claim in respect of incident of fire in the car of complainant has already been entertained by the Insurance Company under the vehicles Insurance Policy and he has been indemnified for the losses suffered by him. Therefore, in view of the same, as per settled law, since his claim has become infractuous, debarred, unsustainable and maintainable. The complainant no longer remains the owner of the vehicle in question, post settlement and receipt of claim from the Insurance Company, the ownership of the vehicle vests with Insurance Company. The complainant never reported or complaint of any manufacturing defects in the car, prior to the fire incident as the said car visited only on the occasions for routine service/repairs. It is submitted that answering respondent is not at responsible for alleged incident of fire in the car, therefore, it cannot be held liable for any sufferings. There was no occasion for the 1st & 2nd opposite party in accepting the mistake or replacing the vehicle or investigated the issue as alleged. The Technical Expert after inspection of car submitted Fire Case Report MAKGM253CAN102546 Annexure OP1/A with photographs with following observation.
“Engine room was partially affected with fire, front side engine & other parts were unaffected but rear engine side is burnt.
It is suspected that the fire started from right side below passenger cabin & spread towards rear and front right side through passenger compartment and under body.
Fire spread in the vehicle due to contact with some flammable material, some underbody hits found near fuel flexible hose but no clear evidence found for exact root cause”.
Conclusion:
As vehicle is burnt completely, hence root cause of fire cannot be established. It is explicit from the said report that the cause of the fire in the car is not due to any mechanical failure or negligence on the part of the respondents as alleged by the complainant. After inspection of the vehicle on 18.05.2011, opinion of the three inspection officers regarding whether the accident was due to vehicle defect, road defect or both in column 16 “This incident caused due to fire Accident” secondly, the document No.7 i.e report of the surveyor given by Simax Surveyors in the form of Motor Final survey report after the inspection of the vehicle with conclusion- the cause of the fire might be due to short circuit or fuel leakage which leads to fire and he motor policy covers the same. Since neither of the reports support the claim of the complainant. Thus the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief as prayed for in the complaint.
3.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The complainants Honda City vehicle with Reg.No.TN 06 B0662 (vehicle) was purchased by the complainant from the 2nd opposite party on 19.04.2010. The vehicle was purchased on 19.04.2010 and had completed four scheduled service visits. (a) 1000 kms – 24.04.2010 (b) 5000 kms – 01.07.2010 (c) 10000 kms – 17.09.2010 (d) 15 000 kms – 02.03.2011. The service records of the 2nd opposite party indicate that the complainant has never raised any performance related grievances throughout this period and has also recorded his satisfaction with the services carried out, the exact mileage which the vehicle had completed as on 02.03.2011 when it was brought for the 4th service was 14,511 kms. Admittedly, the fire accident has taken place more than two months after the last service and the complainant has not raised any complaint or grievance regarding the performance of the vehicle in the meanwhile. The complainant has admitted that he started driving the vehicle around 9.30 a.m on 17.05.2011 with his mother, grandmother, brother and aunt i.e totally 5 passengers. It could safely be stated that vehicle was therefore driving at full capacity. The vehicle has then travelled from Chennai to Kallakurifhi (250 kms approx)without any incident or problem over a span of 4 ½ hours i.e an average speed of 55 kms per hour. When the 2nd opposite party’s engineers inspected the vehicle, it was found that the fire had emanated from the middle portion underneath the car’s chassis. This was evident because of the nature and extent of the damage caused to other parts of the vehicle. However, the extent of the fire and the damage caused made it impossible to conclusively establish the exact cause of the fire. The complainant had earlier stated e-mail dated 24.05.2011 to the 2nd opposite party that he heard a “Sharp metal screech noise” while the vehicle was leaving through the gate of his apartment building at the time of starting it journey on 17.05.2011 at 9.30 am which may have occurred due to the vehicle scraping the ground while leaving the building. Based on the information provided by the complainant and the admitted fact that fuel was seen dripping from the car next to the “red hot ball” at the time of the accident. The fuel supply mechanism which is situated in the middle portion of the car’s under-chassis may have been damaged when the vehicle was driven through the complainant’s apartment gate i.e when the “sharp metal screech noise” was heard. It is probable that some material or waste such as a gunny bag from the road had gotten stuck to the exhaust mechanism (which is very hot and close to the fuel tank) and then caught fire due to the surrounding heat. This would have then led to the leaking fuel also catching fire and quickly spreading to the rest of the vehicle. The vehicle was duly services by the 2nd opposite party and did not have any performance problems or defects. The complainant has failed to establish any negligence or deficiency on the 2nd opposite party’s part and the fire accident cannot be attributed to the 2nd opposite party in the circumstances of this case. Consequently, the complainant is not entitled to any relief in these proceedings.
4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost?
3. To what other relief, the complainant is entitled?
05. POINT NO 1 & 2
The complainant purchased a Hond City Car bearing Registration No.TN-06-BO-0662 from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.10.30 Lakhs during April 2010. The 1st opposite party is the Honda Siel Cars India Limited who is the manufacturer of the car and 2nd opposite party is Sundaram Honda who is the dealer of the car.
06. The case of the complainant is that the complainant in order to attend the funeral function of his close relative at Coimbatore, along with his mother grandmother brother and Aunt travelled in his Car Bearing Registration No.TN- 06- BO-0662 on 17.05.2011 from Chennai to Coimbatore . While the complainant was driving in the National High Way nearing Chinna Salem after Kallakurichi at about 5 kilo meters noticed smoke inside the cabin from the bottom side and the complainant immediately stop his car on the side of the road and poured water, but entire car was inflame and the entire car was burnt. The complainant further alleged the car was burnt due to mechanical failure of the vehicle and therefore the opposite parties are liable to replace the vehicle. But the opposite parties failed to replace the vehicle and therefore the complainant filed this consumer complaint.
07. The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 are that the complainant drove the vehicle for 14,5011 kilo meters within 10 months from the date of purchase of the vehicle, that on 17.05.2011 totally 5 passengers seated in the vehicle and the accident happened. When the 2nd opposite party’s engineers inspected the vehicle it was found that fire had emanated from the middle portion and the complainant had earlier stated in his e-mail dated 24.05.2011 to the 2nd opposite party that he heard a “Sharp metal screech noise” while the vehicle was leaving through the gate of his apartment building at the time of starting it journey on 17.05.2011 at 9.30 am which may have occurred due to the vehicle scraping the ground while leaving the building., that the vehicle was duly serviced by the 2nd opposite party and did not have any performance problems are defect, that the complainant does not disclose any manufacturing defect or defect in the engine in the complaint. Further the complainant received the insurance amount from the insurance company and therefore no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
08. The complainant admitted that he received insurance amount for the vehicle. The technical person of the opposite parties inspected the damaged vehicle and given an observation as follows:
“Engine room was partially affected with fire, front side engine & other parts were unaffected but rear engine side is burnt.
It is suspected that the fire started from right side below passenger cabin & spread towards rear and front right side through passenger compartment and under body.
Fire spread in the vehicle due to contact with some flammable material, some underbody hits found near fuel flexible hose but no clear evidence found for exact root cause”.
The surveyor of the insurance company also inspected the vehicle and submitted the report stating the incident occurred due to fire accident. None of the report stated about manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Further the complainant did not file any documents to show that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant failed to get any expert opinion regarding the alleged manufacturing defect.
09. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and therefore his vehicle got fire and burnt, and the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and relied on the following decision.
(1) REVISION PETITION NO.3187 OF 2011 AND APPEAL NO.995/2011
MARUTI SUZUKI (INDIA) LTD
VS
ASHU BAJAJ AND ORS
(2) REVISION PETITION NO.4962 OF 2008
HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED
VS
ASHOK NARAYAN PAWAR
(3) 2016 SCC ONLINE NCDRC 1380
RENU SHARMA, HYNDAI MOTORS LTD.,
VS
M/S.FX HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED & ANR.
M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,
Here in this complaint the complainant received the entire insurance amount and he has not proved that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. There is no expert opinion also. Hence the above decisions are not applicable to the fact of the present complaint.
10. The 2nd opposite party contended that the vehicle completed four schedule service between 24.04.2010 to 03.02.2011 and last service was done on 02.03.2011 and the fire accident happened after two months from the date of last service . Further the complainant sent a e-mail on 24.05.2011 10.17 a.m stating as follows:
1. “Started from Chennai R.APuram home to Coimbatore at around 9.30 – 10.am.
2.Sharp metal screech noise as we roll out of the compound (we initially mis took it for the under body touching something below and ignored it, but today moved a low ground clearance car to that area and noticed that there is more than enough clearance there”.
Therefore, the fuel supply mechanism which is situated in the middle portion of the car under chassis may have been damaged when the vehicle was driven through the complainant apartment gate when the shop metal Screech Noise was heard. Some materials are waste such as a gunny bag from the road had struck to the exhaust mechanism and then caught fire due to the surrounding heat. Therefore the fire may be due to above fact. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle or there is no mechanical defect in the vehicle. Further the complainant never reported any manufacturing defect in the car prior to the accident. Under these circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for compensation and cost.
11. POINT NO :3
Since the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result this complaint is dismissed. No Costs.
Dictated by the President to the Assistant taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 28th day of February 2022.
MEMBER – I PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated NIL RC Book
Ex.A2 dated NIL Insurance Certificate
Ex.A3 dated NIL FIR lodged with the Chinna Salem police station
Ex.A4 dated NIL Inspection report issued by the RTO
Ex.A5 dated NIL E-mail correspondence between the complainant and the 1st opposite party
Ex.A6 dated NIL E-mail correspondence between the complainant and the financier
Ex.A7 dated NIL Report of the surveyor
Ex.A8 dated NIL Details of the payment of the loan
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF 1st OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B1 dated NIL Fire Case Report of 1st opposite party for the vehicle of complainant
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B2 dated 27.04.2010 Job Card
Ex.B3 dated 01.07.2010 Job Card
Ex.B4 dated 17.09.2010 Job Card
Ex.B5 dated 02.03.2011 Job Card
Ex.B6 dated 25.05.2011 Job Card
MEMBER – I PRESIDENT
