BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

    07^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2019

Complainant/s: -                           

M/s.Brundavan

Education Trust,

No.8, K.No.6^th Street, Makrham Road, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru-25.

Rep. by its Secretary B.S.M.Naidu

By Adv.Sri.A.J.Manohar

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

1. The Managing Director

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt., Ltd., No.24, 10^th floor, Canberra Block,

Vittal Mallya Road,

Near Mallya Hospital, Bengaluru-01.

By Adv.Sri.P.N.Hegde

2. M/s.Motor World Pvt., Ltd., Nandi Toyota,

No.6/1, Talaghattapura,

KP Road, Bengaluru-62.

By Adv.Sri.M.S.Manjunath

3. The Manager

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt., Ltd., No.46/3A, Kudlu Gate, 7^th Mile, Hosur Road, Bengaluru-68.

By Adv.Sri.P.N.Hegde

ORDER

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party no.1, 2 & 3 (herein after called as OPs) jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10 lakhs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

The Complainant submits that, it is the trust represented by its Secretary, OP.2 is the dealer and OP.1 is a manufacturer. He purchased a car ‘Toyota Fortuner’ bearing no.KA41 Z8989 (saloon body) in the year 2013 in the name of the trust from OP.2. The Complainant has purchased the said car having airbag system which ensures safety of the driver as well as the passengers. OP.2 assured that the airbags deployed in the car would inflate soon after the impact felt by the airbag sensor attached to the airbag and the same is mentioned in the owner’s manual also. OP.2 further assured at the time of purchasing of the car that the airbag system which was installed in the car was intact and functioning properly. The Complainant further submits that, on 06.10.14 his car met with an accident at 16.00 pm near Ambur at Chennai-Bengaluru highway. In the said accident, Complainant’s car hit the vehicle which was going in front of his car and due to the said collision front portion of the car as well as left side of the car was completely damaged. The impact was so bad and due to the said impact the airbags of the car was supposed to be inflated immediately without fail but to contrary the said airbags were not inflated though the point of impact was to the front bumper of the car. If the airbag system installed in the car was intact and functioning properly, it would have been deployed immediately soon after the car hit the vehicle which was going in front of it and also when the point of impact was to the front portion of the car. Soon after the accident a complaint was registered at jurisdictional police station and later the car was sent to the service centre of OP. The authorized service centre given the estimation for repair which proved that the front portion of the car was completely damaged. Though the front portion of the car was completely damaged the sensor has failed to feel the impact and intensity of collision to deploy the airbag due to malfunctioning of the same. The Complainant further submits that, without fixing the problem of airbag, OPs have been selling the cars to the customer deceiving them that the airbag system in Toyota cars would work without any failure and further over charging the customers for the airbag system which never works. Hence, claimed Rs.10 lakhs towards mental agony and deficiency of service as the airbag installed in the car failed to deploy, contrary to the claim of the OPs that the car is accident safe vehicle. The Complainant issued legal notice dtd.08.11.14 to all OPs, to which no reply from them. Hence this complaint.

3. After issuance of notice, OPs did appear through their counsel. The OP.1 & 3 filed joint version, OP.2 filed separate version.  OP.1 & 3 in their version specifically stated with regard to the SRS (Supplemental Restraint System) front airbags. The SRS front airbags generally deploy/inflate in the event of an impact that exceeds the set threshold level (the level of force corresponding to 20-30 km/h frontal collision with a fixed wall that does not move or deform). However, this threshold velocity will be considerably higher if the vehicle strikes an object, such as a parked vehicle or sign pole, which can move or deform on impact, or if the vehicle is involved in an under ride collision (e.g. a collision in which the front of the vehicle ‘under rides’ or goes under, the bed of a truck etc.,) It is possible that in some collisions where the forward deceleration of the vehicle is very close to the designed threshold level, the SRS front airbags and seat belt pretensions may not activate together. The working of the airbags and the SRS system is clearly explained in the ‘owner’s manual and warranty booklet’ of the vehicle and the safety book handed over to the Complainant at the time of purchase.  OPs further submits that, the statements regarding the damages on the front portion of the car may not be correct. The damages prima facie reveal that, impact of the collision was on the left hand side portion of the vehicle and not a frontal collision and as such airbags were not inflated. As stated earlier, the airbags did not open at the time of the accident because the appropriate circumstances for deployment of the airbags were missing. Hence, there is no question of deceiving the Complainant. The inputs provided by OP.2 reveal that, the sensors of the vehicle were working as there was no indication on the warning lights. Moreover, as per the vehicle investigation report prepared after the accident, it is clear that the impact sensors were not damaged. Therefore, the airbags were not deployed or inflated at the time of the accident as the impact sensors were not activated due to the impact of the collision being on the left hand side of the vehicle. OPs have sent a letter dtd.27.11.14 to the Complainant reiterating its stand towards working of the airbags. OPs further submits that, since the impact of the collision was on the extreme right hand edge of the vehicle, the airbags normally will not be activated and inflated and this is common not only for the vehicles manufactured by the OPs but most vehicles at large which provide the SRS system for the safety of its passengers.  OPs further submits that, there is no any kind of manufacturing defect or deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the allegations made in the present complaint have no direct or indirect connection with the alleged accident as admittedly the accident did not occurred due to any manufacturing defect. Therefore, non-deployment of the airbags was not due to a defect in manufacturing but rather may have been due to the lack of appropriate conditions required for activating the crash sensors which activate the airbag module. Further, with regard to the case printed in newspaper cutting, OPs submit that, the facts of the said case is different from the present case on hand, hence, the same cannot be considered. Hence on these grounds and other grounds OP.1 & 3 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

3a. OP.2 in his version denies all the allegations of the Complainant that the said vehicle was not up to the mark. However, the said vehicle is in good condition meeting all the safety standards and the Complainant purchased the same after thoroughly verifying the features of the vehicle. It reiterated the contention taken by OP.1 & 3 with regard to SRS front airbags. Further submits that, on a detailed investigation of the said vehicle by a team of technicians, it was clearly observed that the said vehicle was involved in offset collision and variant with air bags of the said vehicle did not deploy since there was no frontal collision warranting deployment of the airbags. In fact the airbag sensors and the connecting wire harness of the system were found to be intact without any damage. As per the investigation held by OP team, it is reported that, the damage on the A-piller, LH front, impact is not in the center which is away from the airbag sensor. The said vehicle was involved in offset collision and variant with air bags of the said vehicle did not deploy since there was no frontal collision, warranting deployment of the airbags. As per the accident information check sheet, the Complainant himself has stated that, the accident occurred when, a front moving truck turned to its right suddenly, the driver of the vehicle also tried to take right but could not control and hit to the truck and the vehicle got damaged in the front left side. Thus it is clear that, the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle.  Even though the vehicle was damaged severely, the driver and inmates were safe. Thus issue of the functioning/malfunctioning of variant air bag will not arise. Hence, submits that, there is no deficiency of service on its part. Accordingly, it replied to the legal notice vide dtd.10.11.14 and 27.11.14 reiterating its stand towards the functioning of airbags. Hence, OP.2 prays this forum to dismiss the complaint.

4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OPs filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents.  OP.1 & 3, OP.2 filed written arguments. Heard. We have gone through the available materials on record.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?

2. What order?

        6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:- In the negative

Point No.2:- As per final order

REASONS

7. Point No.1: We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the joint version filed by OP.1 & 3 and separate version filed by OP.2. The claim of the Complainant is to direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs towards mental agony and Rs.5 lakhs for deficiency of service as the airbag installed in the Complainant’s car failed to deploy.

8. As to know whether, the claim made by the Complainant is justifiable, we have to scrutinize the evidence in respect of the airbag installed in the Complainant’s car failed to deploy. If the Complainant proved this issue, then the question of paying the amount Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation and deficiency of service will arise. To falsify the claim of the Complainant, OPs placed reliance on the contents of Doc.B1 to B4. Doc.B1 is the images of the vehicle, Doc.B2 is the owner’s manual, Doc.B3 is the safety book and Doc.B4 is the letter dtd.27.11.14 sent by OP.2 to the Complainant.

9. According to the version of OP.1, 3 and OP.2, it is specifically stated that, the SRS front airbags generally deploy/inflate in the event of an impact that exceeds the set threshold level (the level of force corresponding to 20-30 km/h frontal collision with a fixed wall that does not move or deform). However, this threshold velocity will be considerably higher if the vehicle strikes an object, such as a parked vehicle or sign pole, which can move or deform on impact, or if the vehicle is involved in an under ride collision (e.g. a collision in which the front of the vehicle ‘under rides’ or goes under, the bed of a truck etc.,) It is possible that in some collisions where the forward deceleration of the vehicle is very close to the designed threshold level, the SRS front airbags and seat belt pretensions may not activate together. Further, the airbag system consists of three basic parts namely an air bag module, crash sensors and a diagnostic unit. The crash sensors are located in front of the vehicle and the sensors are activated by forces generated in significant frontal crashes. The diagnostic unit monitors the readiness of the airbag system. The unit is activated when the vehicle’s ignition is turned on. If the unit identifies a problem, a warning light alerts the driver to take the vehicle to an authorized service department for examination of the airbag system. Referring to this further taken the contention that, in the said car the sensors were working as there was no indication on the warning lights. Moreover, detailed examination and investigation of the incident was conducted and as per the vehicle investigation report prepared after the accident, it is clear that the impact sensors were not damaged. Therefore, the airbags were not deployed or inflated at the time of the accident as the impact sensors were not activated due to the impact of the collision being on the left hand side of the vehicle. In this context, reliance is placed on the photographs/Doc.B1 &  B17. We find there is considerable force in the contention taken by the OPs. Moreover the working of the airbags and the SRS system is clearly explained in the Owner’s manual and warranty booklet/Doc.B2 of the vehicle and the safety book/Doc.B3 handed over to the customer at the time of purchase. In respect of the claim made by the Complainant, OP.2 sent a letter/Doc.B4 dtd.27.11.14 reads thus:

To,

M/s.Brundavan Education Trust

Sub: Your Fortuner Vehicle Registration No.KA41 Z8989

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your continued trust with brand Toyota. This is further to your communication with our dealer M/s.Nandi Toyota, Kanakapura road (dtd.08.11.14) with us in relation to your Fortuner Vehicle bearing registration No.KA41  Z8989.

As per our technical team investigation the accident is an offset collision. The complete airbag system was thoroughly inspected during investigation there were no abnormalities. The criteria for front airbag deployment is not met hence the airbag is not deployed. We would assure you that the repairs are performed to the Toyota standards and same was explained to you in detail. We would like to reiterate that your Fortuner vehicle is absolutely fine and not having any manufacturing defect.

Your vehicle is ready for delivery at Ms.Nandi Toyota, Kanakpura Road, Bengaluru.

Request you to take the delivery of the same at earliest from the dealer.

Reiterating our solemn commitment to every Toyota customer, we thank you for sharing your concern with us and wishing you an everlasting happy relationship with Toyota.

Yours truly

Toyota Kirloskar Motor

10. To falsify the contents of the said letter, the Complainant has not put any extra effort to take the third party expert opinion. The contents of the said letter/Doc.B4 clearly goes to show that, investigation report of the technical team reveals that, there was no any abnormalities in the airbags. The criteria for front airbag deployment is not met hence the airbag is not deployed. Hence, the contention taken by the Complainant has no legs to stand. In this context, we come to the conclusion that, there is no any deficiency of service on the part of OPs. When such being the fact, the question of paying the amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation and Rs.5 lakhs towards deficiency of service does not arise. Accordingly we answered point No.1 in the negative.

  11. Point No.2: In the result, we passed the following:         

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed devoid of any merits. Looking to the circumstances of the case we direct both parties to bear their own costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 07^th day of December 2019)

        MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant dated.12.08.15

Sri.B.S.M.Naidu, Secretary of the Trust

Copies of Documents produced by the Complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OPs dated.20.11.15, 20.01.16

Sri.V.Sudharshan, Asst., Manager, Customer Relation of OP.2

Sri.Shrinivas P Gotur, DGM-legal & Company Secretary of OP.1 & 3   

Copies of Documents produced by OP.1 & 3

Copies of Documents produced by OP.2

            MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT