Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/508/2020

Gurjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Himmat Singh Sidhu

09 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/508/2020
Date of Institution	:	04/11/2020
Date of Decision	:	09/05/2023

 

Gurjeet Singh aged 28 years, son of S.Jagjit Singh, R/o H.No.172, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.24, 10^th Floor, Canera Block, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001, Karnataka, India, through its Managing Director.
2. Pioneer Toyota, Plot No.177, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Himmat Singh Sidhu, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Ankit Kumar, Vice Counsel for Sh.Ritesh Tomar, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	Sh.S.R.Bansal, Counsel for OP No.2.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant purchased Etios model Vxd which top variant in the car. The subject vehicle is purchased on 31.01.2015 for the purpose of purchase this model because it provides the most important safety feature i.e., SRS Airbags, which are not available in the other lower models. As per complainant, on 12.07.2020 at around 9.00 P.M. he alongwith his brother were going towards Sector 38, Chandigarh when they met with an accident. The car was driven at a speed around 50 to 60 km/per hr. The car, in front going smoothly suddenly applied breaks, and the complainant’s car crashed into the other car from behind. The accident took place on the driving road of Sectors 36 and 23, Chandigarh. It is also submitted that the Airbags of the complainant’s car did not open at the crash/accident time. The complainant raised the issue with the engineers and officials of the dealership as the airbags did not open, but no satisfactory answer was given nor they were interested to pass the issue to higher officials. It is further submitted that the airbags will deploy in the event of an impact that exceeds the threshold level approximately 20-30 km/h frontal collision (Ex.C-6). The complainant sent a legal notice which was served to the OPs but till date no reply has been received (Ex.C-7). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the subject vehicle was purchased on 31.01.2015 and the cause of action, if any, has to be calculated from the date of purchase i.e., 31.01.2015 and the limitation period to file the complaint expired on 31.01.2017. The present complaint has been filed in the year 2020 i.e., after a delay of 3 years. It is further submitted that the subject vehicle met with an accident on 12.07.2020 and thereafter, the subject vehicle was brought at the service centre of the OP No.2 for carrying out the repair. The vehicle was duly repaired by the OP No.2 as per the prescribed standards of the OP No.1. As per the records of the OP, the complainant did not raise any query with respect to non-deployment of the air bags at the time of repair. It is also submitted that the collision did not meet the condition for the front airbag deployment and thus, there was no deployment of the front SRS airbags. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by Op No.1.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that there was no direct impact on the car in question, so there is no question of any opening of air bags and this fact was and is very much within the knowledge of the complainant and simply he wants to take undue benefit of his own wrong and as such the vehicle is not covered under warranty clause. It is further submitted that the complaint is hopelessly time barred & out of warranty, being the model of 2015, as admitted in para No.6 of the complaint and the complainant has taken insurance claim from the insurance company and as such no further case is made out nor having any cause of action. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by Op No.2.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     On perusal of the complaint, it is observed that the main grievance of the complainant is that airbags of the car did not deploy during the crash/accident, inspite of the damage to the whole front part of the car.
8.     On perusal of the complaint, it is observed that the vehicle of the complainant hit another vehicle which was moving in front and applied sudden brake. The OPs have taken a stand that collision did not meet the condition for the front airbag deployment. In para 12 of the complaint, complainant have also brought out that no major injury was caused to any of the passengers of both cars, except some scratches on the arms of both the front seat passengers. The cost of vehicle is also indicated as Rs.10,30,000/- wherein the amount spent towards repair was only Rs.1,20,042/-.
9.     We are of the concerted view that most of the frontal impact was absorbed by the radiator support, apron and bumper reinforcement during the accident and accident does not appear to be so severe as to meet the requirements for the deployment of the airbags. In view of the above discussion, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
09/05/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member