West Bengal

Siliguri

71/S/2013

SRI BISHNU CHIK BARAIK - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE PROPRIETOR, - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 71/S/2013.         DATED : 31.08.2015.   

 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI  BHATTACHARJEE

                                                              & SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                 : SRI BISHNU CHIK BARAIK @

 BISHNU CHIKBARIK,  

  S/O Lachman Chik Baraik,

  Nimtijhora Tea Estate, 

  P.O. & P.S.– Kalchini,

  Dist.- Jalpaiguri. PIN – 735 127.

             

O.Ps.           1.                          : THE PROPRIETOR,

  M/s. Durga Hyundai,

  Durga Automotives (P) Ltd.,

  Tenzing Norgay Road, Dagapur,

  Siliguri, P.O. & P.S.– Pradhan Nagar,

  Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 003.

 

 

2.                                 : THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

  Hyundai Motors India Ltd.,

  Having registered office and Factory at

  Plot No.1, Sipcot Industrial Park,

  Irrungattukottai Sriperumbudur Taluk,

  Kancheepuram,

  Chennai – 602 105, Tamil Nadu, India.

 

3.                                 : DURGA AUTOMOTIVES PVT. LTD.,

  Tenzing Norgay Road, Dagapur,

  Siliguri, P.O. & P.S.– Pradhan Nagar,

                                                              Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

4.                                 : THE DIRECTOR,

  Durga Automotives Pvt. Ltd.,

  Tenzing Norgay Road, Dagapur,

  Siliguri, P.O. & P.S.– Pradhan Nagar,

                                                              Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

5.                                 : HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA

  LIMITED,

  Plot No.1, Sipcot Industrial Park,

  Irrungattukottai Sriperumbudur Taluk,

  Kancheepuram, Chennai – 602 105,

  Tamil Nadu, India.

 

Contd…..P/2

-:2:-

 

 

6.                                 : M/S DURGA HYUNDAI,

  Tenzing Norgay Road, Dagapur, Siliguri,

  P.O. & P.S.– Pradhan Nagar,

                                                              Dist.- Darjeeling. 

                                               

                                                                                                                                                                  

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Monojit Roy, Advocate.

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

Sri Biswanath De, Hon’ble President.

 

The complainant’s case in a nutshell is that the complainant purchased one vehicle manufactured by OP No.1 Model No.110 ASTA 1.2 imm BSIV, colour Champagne Gold, with price of Rs.4,93,276/-.  The said vehicle was registered being No.WB-70B-3209, safety standards of components and road worthiness and the certificate of extended warranty dated 28.04.2010 valid up to 27.04.2013 or up to 60,000 KMs whichever occurs first to the complainant.  The vehicle was equipped with Air Bag both in driver’s and passenger’s front seating positions of the said vehicle so that, the Air Bags inflate instantly in the event of a serious frontal or side collision. 

On 20.10.2011 at 5 p.m. the vehicle suffered accident with a truck bearing registration No. GH-Z-BY-5541 suffering a serious frontal head- on collision, resulting both the complainant and his wife seriously injured.  On that date complainant was immediately shifted to Alipurduar Sub-Divisional Hospital.  The wife of the complainant declared dead and the complainant was admitted to Siliguri Paramount Hospital being referred from Alipurduar S.D. Hospital.  Kalchini P.S. started a Kalchini P.S. Case No.181/2011 under Section 279, 338, 304/A against the driver of the said offending vehicle with registration no.GH-Z-BY-5541.  Complainant suffered total expenses of Rs.1,03,057/- in the Paramount Nursing

 

Contd…..P/3

 

-:3:-

 

Home, Siliguri.  The major portions of the vehicle were seriously damaged. 

The contention of the complainant is that the vehicle suffered from serious and severe manufacturing defect for which air bags was not inflated.  The vehicle was under warranty dated 28.04.2010, as incident took place on 20.10.2011.        

It is contended that OP is liable for such manufacturing defect. 

The claim has been lodged against the OPs. 

M/s. Durga Hyundai and others (Durga Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.) have contested the case and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant against them. 

OPs have stated in para no.10 that there is no evidence that complainant had driving license.  It is not clear that whether the complainant and his wife fastened with seat belt or not.  There is no evidence that whether the said truck hit the said vehicle to its front side or head of the vehicle.  It is stated that the complainant got insurance claim as per terms of the insurance policy.  The vehicle has not been examined by an expert for ascertaining whether the vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing defect. 

Under the above circumstances, it is prayed that the case may be dismissed.      

This W.O. has been accepted by OP Nos.3, 4 & 6. 

The case heard ex-parte against the OP Nos.2 & 5.

Complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Invoice No.COB/08/10-11 dated 28.04.2010 issued by OP No.1.

2.       Certificate of extended warranty dated 28.04.2010 of the vehicle being Chassis No.MALAN51CLAM609720*C.

3.       Certificate of Registration.

4.       Copy of Final Report.

5.       Copy of Treatment sheet and some other documents.

Contd…..P/4

-:4:-

 

 

 

OPs did not file any documents. 

Complainant has filed evidence-in-chief.

OPs did not file any evidence-in-chief. 

 

Points for decision

 

1.       Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on behalf of the OPs.

2.       If so, is the complainant entitled to get any relief ?

 

Decision with reason

 

These two issues are taken together for discussion for the sake of brevity and convenience.

The complainant has filed written notes on argument.  In the W/N/A, the complainant has stated the story of accident and treatment of complainant and that the wife of the complainant died in the accident.  Complainant was treated in the Paramount Nursing Home.  The police has filed charge sheet under Section 304/A, 279 I.P.C. against the driver of the offending vehicle.  It is stated by the complainant that during that accident they got no protection from the air belt.  It is stated that they were satisfied with the safety standard of the vehicle and roadworthiness of the vehicle. 

In affidavit-in-chief, the complainant has stated history of the vehicle and accident and he also filed regarding filing of other documents including charge sheet and photographs of the damaged vehicle registration No.WB-70B-3209 and of the vehicle being registration No.GH-Z-BY-5541 following the accident relating to Kalchini P.S. Case No.181/2011 dated 20.10.2011 under Section 279, 338, 304/A of I.P.C. (Annexure U series).  He also filed annexure –C showing elastration and operation of air bag depicted in the owner’s manual and service booklet issued to the complainant by the OPs with respect to the vehicle.

Contd…..P/5

-:5:-

 

 

In fact, the complainant has filed all the papers relating to purchase price and accident of the vehicle. 

The evidence shows that the complainant did not file driving license. 

In the argument, the complainant stated that “despite the fact that the said vehicle suffered such serious frontal head on collision the Air Bags neither in the driver’s front or the passenger’s front inflate when as per Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet of the said vehicle the Air Bags inflate instantly in the event of a serious frontal or side collision in order to help protect the occupants from serious physical injury. 

The said vehicle suffered from serious and severe manufacturing defect as a result of which the Air Bags neither in the driver’s front or the passenger’s front of the said vehicle inflate despite such serious frontal head-on collision with respect to the said vehicle as mentioned above”.

There is no evidence regarding the point of manufacturing defect.  The complainant voiced that there were manufacturing defect for which the Air Bag was not inflated.  But there is no evidence to substantiate this fact on which the case is based. 

The photographs have been filed by the complainant.  The photograph of devastation of the vehicle has adhere with the document.  From different angles it transpires that the vehicle in question has been destroyed by the offending vehicles.  The photography of the vehicle in question itself shows that it is doubtful regarding the action of air belt was going on or not. 

In such a type of accident, in which the vehicle is completely destroyed no guilt is attributed on the company taking the plea that there was defect in the manufacturer or there was manufacturing defect.

 

Contd…..P/6

-:6:-

 

 

So, after deliberations over the complainant’s version and version of the OPs as well as materials on documents, adduced by the complainant, it is clearly concluded that there is no evidence to hold that there had been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question i.e., the vehicle used by the complainant which suffered accident. 

In, the result, the complainant’s case fails. 

Hence, it is

                    O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.71/S/2013 is dismissed on contest against the OPs, without any cost.             

Let copies of this judgment be given to the parties free of cost.               

 

 

-Member-                    -Member-                            -President-