Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/26/2010

S.Edhayachnadran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized Delear MPL Ford India Pvt Ltd & 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.Manarsamy

11 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                                  BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                                            TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                              MEMBER

 

C.C.NO. 26/2010

DATED THIS THE 11^th   DAY OF JUNE 2015

                                                                                                                       Date of Complaint      :  18.2.2010

                                                                                                                        Date of Order            :  11.6.2015

S. Edayachandran

S/o Samuel

3/79, “D” Block,

Nithyananda Sagar Apartment,

No.11, Madhavaram High Road,

Sembiam

Chennai 600 011                                                                                                               ..complainant

                                   Vs

1.The Authorised Dealer

MPL Ford India Pvt. Ltd,

419/13, III main Road,

Anna salai

Chennai – 2   

 

2. The Regional Manager

MPL Ford India Pvt. Ltd,

Regional Office : R.M.2

Millienium Business park

Block-1 B, First Floor

North Veeranam Salai

Dr.M.G.R.Road, Perungudi

Chennai 600 096

 

3. The Managing Diector

MPL Ford India Pvt. Ltd,

Singaperumal Koil 603 204

Chengalpattu Taluk

Kancheepuram District                                                                                        ..opposite parties

 

Counsel for the complainant      : M/s V.S.Mannarsamy

Counsel for the opposite party 1  : M/s Mohandoss

Counsel for the 2^nd & 3^rd op        : M/s R.Senthil kumar

 

This complaint coming before us for hearing finally on 4.6.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, this commission made the following order.               

                                    ORDER

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.       The complainant filed a complaint u/s 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.       The complainant praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.42 lakhs as compensation for defective manufacturing of car, to pay Rs.7 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and for costs.

3.   The gist of the complaint in brief as follows:

          The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Ford Endeavour car in the year 2006 and registered as TN 05 T 4386 by paying Rs.16 lakhs believing all the proper safety facilities provided with Air pack which would open in case of accident when the complainant took his car on 20.2.2008 met with an accident in Kodavalur village, Andhra Pradesh and the air pack balloon not opened in the car. The co-passenger Mr. Sleeth, aged about 53 years died on 20.10.2008 due to non-opening of Air pack. At the time of accident, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are authorised persons. The 3^rd opposite party who manufactured the defective car which lost one life and thereby the complainant was mentally upset for one and half years and claim insurance for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from Bajaj Alliance and the opposite party did not pay any compensation for the defective manufacturing of car and thereby after issuing legal notice on 8.2.2010 filed the consumer complaint claiming the above reliefs.

4.            The opposite parties denied the allegations in their written version. The 1^st opposite party contended that the complainant purchased a car during the year 2006 and the accident took place on 20.2.2008 till then without having any complaint about the Air pack system. After the accident nearly after two years, issued legal notice on 8.2.2010 and the complaint was hurriedly filed and was barred by limitation. In the owner’s manual it is clearly mentioned about the Air bag system and its usages and methods observing condition by the passengers and as per the same in certain circumstances, the air pack will not operate which is depending upon the impact caused upon the vehicle and the 30 degree range from head- on to the vehicle hitting a curb, pavement edge or hard object and the load hard or vehicle falling and certain impact involving trees or poles cause severe damage and  rear ending running under a truck’s tail gate and the complainant not made the opposite parties to inspect the vehicle when claimed insurance for the death person.

5.        The 3^rd opposite party contended that the complaint should be rejected in limine, the complainant claimed Rs.10 lakhs from the insurance company which was paid for the value of car is Rs.14 lakhs after two years of occurrence filed the consumer complaint on the basis of death of Mr. Sleeth whose relationship not established. The complainant also exaggerated the claim to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission and as per various rulings reported without mechanical inspection of subject vehicle is not maintainable. It is submitted that  when the air bag  crash sensor detect a frontal impact of greater than moderate force, an electrical current is sent to the inflators and gases are produced to inflate the air bags, after the inflation the air bags quickly deflate.  Hence the complaint to be dismissed.

6.         Both side have filed their proof affidavits and on the side of the complainant documents Ex.A.1 to A.6 were marked and on the side of the opposite parties Ex.B.1 to B.7 were marked.

7.    Points for consideration are as follows:-

1.  Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to compensate to the extent of Rs.42 lakhs for the alleged defective supply of car in which the system of air bag not opened at the time of accident?

3.    Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.7 lakhs and for cost?

4. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

8.  Point No.1:

         In this complaint enquiry, the opposite parties alleged that the occurrence of accident took place on 20.2.2008 and the legal notice was issued on 8.2.2010, there after the complaint was filed after the lapse of two years and thereby it was time barred.  On perusal of complainant’s averments and the date of filing of complaint, it is admitted that the accident was happened on 20.2.2008 and from that day within two years on or before 19.2.2008, as per sec 24(A) of C.P Act, complaint ought to have been filed for seeking relief. Though the complainant had issued a legal notice nearly ahead of two years after the occurrence on 8.2.2010, the complaint was actually filed before this Commission on 18.2.2010 just one day prior to the expiry of two years from 20.2.2008 and thereby the complaint is not barred by limitation and this point is answered accordingly.

 

Point No.2 & 3 

           In this complaint enquiry, it is the alleged case of complainant that his vehicle purchased from the opposite party for Rs.16 lakhs as per the document under Ex.A.6 on 31.10.2006, the vehicle having no complaint of defects with any, till the vehicle is met with an accident on 20.2.2008 in which it is stated that one of the claims of the complainant that one Mr. Sowrimuthu Sleeth travelled  and died in the accident due to non-opening of air bag system with the blowing of deployment air bag caused death. The complainant did not file any proof for the cause of death of Mr. Sleeth, eventhough filed a copy of FIR under Ex.A.3,  which is found in the language in Telugu and the contentions could not be decoded and no copy of translation either in English or in Tamil was filed for the same. Further the complainant said to have claimed Rs.10 lakhs from the Bajaj Alliance Insurance company for the death of Mr. Sleeth before the Accident claims Tribunal. He has not produced any documents relating to the same, including the vehicle inspection report in order to ascertain to nature of accident and the status of air bag system condition further the air balloons are not produced. Even though, the opposite parties contended that the air bag system will work under certain condition to prove the same whether those contentions were followed or not and the complainant not sent the vehicle for expert evidence through this Commission u/s 13 of the C.P Act. Under Ex.B.6. Eventhough the estimate details given for the repairs to be carried out and find with heavy damages in the front of the vehicle since the complainant had failed to prove the manufacturing defect with an expert opinion, he cannot claim any relief for the defective vehicle as relied upon by the opposite parties and various Ruling reported in

             II 2005 CPJ 72 NC 

             2006 (III) CPR 336 NC

             2004(III) CPJ 585  

and further the opposite parties contended that the complainant exaggerated the claim for Rs.49 lakhs when he purchased a car  for Rs. 14 lakhs only and relied upon precedent of Delhi State Commission, in complaint No. C-08/127 in which it is observed as follows:-

     “In my view compensation claimed for alleged manufacturing defects in a car is highly exaggerated, whimsical and fanciful and has been claimed with the sole object of invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission. Object of Consumer Protection Act is not to enrich the consumers unjustly.”

    In view of the forgoing reasons we transfer this complaint to the concerned District Forum as even if the allegations are assumed to be correct and proved the amount of compensation cannot exceed Rs.20 lacs for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction”.

 

 this is also applicable in this case. Further the opposite parties relied upon the ruling reported in

    

      1995  II Supreme Court cases 479

     in which it is held as follows:-

 

        “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – SS 21 and 2(1)(c), (d), (e) (f),(g) & (o), 3 and 12 – National Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicles accidents – Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction under Motor Vehicles Act to entertain such claims – Motor Vehicle ACt in relation to such claims is a special Act while Consumer Protection Act to that extent is a general Law and therefore, the special law should prevail over the general law – Death of a person occurred  due to injury suffered in accident arising out of use of a bus by him – claim for compensation filed by Consumer Protection Counsel on behalf of LRs of the deceased before National Commission under S.21 after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Motor Vehicles Act for filing claim before the Tribunal – Held ‘complaint’ not related to any ‘service’ availed of by the victim but related to any ‘service’ availed of by the victim but related to the accident and therefore cannot be entertained by National Commission – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Ss.165, 166,168 and 175”

                   In view of the same also since the complainant claimed the relief on the basis of death of Mr. Sleeth, he had already claimed compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicle Act 1998. Hence in view of the same, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount for Rs.42 lakhs for the alleged deficiency in supply of car or Rs.7 lakhs compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and these points are answered accordingly.

 

Point No.4

           In view of the finding in point No.1 to 3, against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled for any relief under the C.P.Act 1986 and failed to prove his complaint and thereby the complaint deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly,

 

            In the result, this complaint is dismissed.

            No order as to costs in this case.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                      A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   ANNEXURE

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A.1          .11.2006      copy of Bill & warranty card of the ops

 

Ex.A.2          14.11.2006   copy of R.C.Book

 

Ex.A.3          2.12.2008     Copy of F.I.R

 

Ex.A.4          8.2.2010      copy of legal notice and A.D

 

Ex.A.5           26.4.2010     copy of insurance of Bajaj Allianz

 

Ex.A.6          31.10.2006   copy of purchase bill and Registration charges bill

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPP.PARTIES

 

Ex.B.1          copy of owner’s manual for Essential Safety Equipment

Ex.B.2          copy of estimate details issued to the complainant dt. 11.4.2008

Ex.B.3          copy of legal notice issued by the complainant dt.8.2.2010

Ex.B.4          copy of reply notice by the 1^st opp.party dated 6.3.2010

Ex.B.5          copy of extract regarding Air bag activation in the Owner’s manual of the vehicle.

Ex.B.6          copy of the repair estimate bill dated 11.4.2008

Ex.B.7          copy of reply notice dated 5.3.2010

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                 A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER