Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/12/137

L.Girija Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Kulathungal Motors and Another - Opp.Party(s)

05 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

                                  SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR   : MEMBER

                                  SRI.VIJU.V.R.                 : MEMBER

CC.NO.137/2012

ORDER DATED : 05/08/2022

 

COMPLAINANT

 

Smt.L.Girija Devi,

Sudarsanam, JNRA -6,

Jyothi Nagar, Vettamukku,

Thirumala.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram

 

(By Adv.Suja Madhav)

 

VS

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

1. The Manager,

Kulathunkal Motors,

Toll Junction, Chakai – Kazhakuttam Byepass Road,

Oruvathil Kottah, Anayara.P.O

Trivandrum – 695029

 

2. The Managing Director,

Fiat India Automobiles India Ltd,

B-19, Rajangaon MIDC, Industrial Area,

412210, Taluka: Shirur, Pune, India

 

(OP1 by Adv.V.K.Mohan kumar)

 

6698606.  

 

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR            : MEMBER

 

          1.       The complainant had purchased a FIAT PUNTO CAR bearing Reg.No.KL-01-AZ-3213 on 16.09.2010 on effecting a payment of Rs.7,63,853/- from the show room of the first opposite party. The complainant had effected the purchase on knowing about the brand value and reputation of the second opposite party, which is in existence for the last several years. The complainant had purchased the said car only on believing the assurances of the opposite parties regarding the features of the car also she had purchased the said car on strong belief that the quality shall be assured on knowing about the reputation of the organisation. On 27.12.2011, the said car met with an accident in Tamil Nadu, while the vehicle was being driven by the complainant’s son and the car was inhaut due to a traffic block. At that point of time, to the front side, there was a Tamil Nadu Transport bus bearing Reg.No.TN-32 N-AZ-499. At that time there came another heavy lorry over loaded with huge iron bus in over speed and negligently hit the Tempo bearing Reg.NO.TN-29-N-2007 and to the reads end there was another Tempo bearing Reg.No.TN-32-AZ-4299 which was parked to the rear end of the said car of the complainant. Due to the said impact that Tempo hit the car of the complainant and the rear end of the car was damaged completely and in that impact the said car hit on the Tamil Nadu Bus and its front portion also got damaged completely. But quite unfortunately the exciting feature of the said car of DUAL STAGE OF AIR BAGS does not work at all and the passenger sustained severe injuries. The complainant was shocked to know that this Air bag facility has not functioned at the time of collision and the son of the complainant got injured. At any rate of the exorbitant price charged for such an ordinary car, entitles the complainant to prosecute for the unfair trade practice and relevant provisions of the Penal Code. The complainant had contacted the opposite parties through various calls and approached them on several occasions to replace the car, but they were not willing to either to replace it with a new one or to refund the price of the car. This is the best quality model with all exciting features including the “DUAL STAGE AIR BAGS” (front) with early crash sensors. If this would have functioned, there would not have been any injuries to the passengers inside the car. The said incident clearly shows that the car does not have the said features as assured at the time of purchasing the car. The second opposite party being a reputed manufacturer, it is the bounden duty of them either to replace it with a new one or to refund the price of the car as per the norms of fair trade practice. The complainant had already spent an amount of Rs.7,63,853/- for the defective model and hence the entire interest at commercial rate is also to be refunded. The opposite parties neither replaced the car nor got a satisfactory response from them. The complainant approached the opposite party several times but the same fell into deaf ears. On 16.03.2012, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party explaining the whole position. But there was no response to the said letter, though they received the notice. Thus the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.    

2.       The first opposite party filed version. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the complainant has purchased a fiat car manufactured by the second opposite party from the first opposite party. The first opposite party is not aware of the accident took place in Tamil Nadu, where the complainant’s car is involved. According to the complainant from the back and the rear end of the car was damaged completely and in that impact the said car hit on a Tamil Nadu transport bus and its front portion also got damaged. The grievance of the complainant is that at the time of hitting the car the air bag facility did not work and as a result of which complainant’s son got injured. The opposite party is not aware of the nature of injuries sustained by the son of the complainant or in fact whether he sustained any injuries. The complainant is put to strict proof regarding those allegations. The complainant has misunderstood regarding the use of airbag facility fitted in the car. Airbags are intended and helps to reduce the extent of injuries incurred in higher speed collisions. Airbags are not intended to be activated in every accident. They are also designed to be triggered by the impact equivalent of a car running head on into a fixed and rigid concrete barrier at a speed of approximately 20 km/h. The complainant has raised the allegations without knowing use of purpose of the airbags fitted in the car. The unfair trade practice alleged by the complainant is because of her ignorance about the functioning of the airbags. The claim of the complainant to replace the car with a new one or refund the price of the car is baseless and cannot be headed. There is no manufacturing defect in the car which warrants replacement. The allegation of the complainant that the car is a defective model is false and hence denied. There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite part and hence this opposite party is not liable to the complainant to any extent whatsoever.

3.                After accepting the notice the second opposite party was absent and set exparte.

          4.       Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents. Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. Opposite parties not turned up for cross examination of complainant. Also opposite parties not filed affidavit and documents. Complainant filed argument notes.

Issues to be considered are :

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. If so what is the relief and cost.

Issues I & II

          5.       We perused relevant documents on record. As per Ext.P1 the tax invoice shows the grand total price of car was of Rs.6,94,869/-. The complainant stated that she had purchased the car for an amount of Rs.7,63,853/- from first opposite party. The case of the complainant is regarding the non deployment of air bags of her punto car. The complainant had purchased the car manufactured by OP2 only because of its added safety features of Air bags. On 27/12/2011 the car met with an accident, after such a huge impact the most exiting features of the car of dual stage of air bags does not open up and failed to function completely. The complainant’s son who drives the car had sustained severe injuries too. The complainant stated that she had purchased the car only because of its safety feature of dual stage air bags. Neither any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence was adduced by opposite parties. As per Ext.P8 series photographs of car shows the damages of vehicle if the air bags do not deploy in such a forceful hit, there is no meaning in such a safety feature of the car. The complainant’s son who drove the car had sustained severe injuries due to the accident.

          6.       The opposite parties not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant. In view of the above discussions we find that the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.

 In the result, complaint allowed.We direct the opposite parties and severally to pay Rs.6,94,869/- as the price of the car and pay Rs.25,000/-  as the compensation and pay Rs.2500/- as the cost of proceedings,   

         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

                Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 5^th day of August 2022.

 

                                                                                    Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

                                                                                    Sd/

PREETHA.G.NAIR   : MEMBER

                                                                                             Sd/-

VIJU.V.R: MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

APPENDIX

CC.NO.137/2012

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Smt.L.Girija Devi

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - Copy of tax invoice

Ext.P2                   - Copy of certificate dated 27/12/2011

Ext.P3                   - Copy of advocate notice dated 10/03/2012

Ext.P4                   - Copy of postal receipt

Ext.P5                   - Original acknowledgment cards (2 nos)

Ext.P6                   - Copy of RC book

Ext.P7                   - Copy of brochure

Ext.P8                   - photographs of car (5 in nos)

List of witness for the opposite parties – NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties- NIL

Court Exhibits                                   - NIL

 

 

                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                           PRESIDENT