Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/119/2014

J.S. SATHISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VOLVO AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD., THE MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

V. BALAJI

23 Jul 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                                    BEFORE : THIRU.J.JAYARAM                        PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                                       TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                     MEMBER

C.C. No. 119 / 2014

Dated this the 23^rd day of JULY, 2015

J.S.Sathish Kumar,

Director,

TKVTSS Medical Education and

Charitable Trust (TKVTSSMEC Trust),             ..Complainant

44A, 2^nd Agaraharam,

Salem 636 301.

 

Vs

1. The Managing Director,

    Volvo Auto India Pvt.Ltd,

    Tower A, Ground Floor,

    Unitech Cyber Park,

    Greenwood City, Sector-39,

    Gurgaon, Haryana- 122 001.

2. The Managing Director,

    Artemis Auto India Pvt.Ltd,

    2/290-B, Mylampatti Road,                       ..Opposite parties

    Chinniyampalayam,

    Coimbatore 641 062.

Counsel for Complainant          : M/s.V.Balaji

Counsel for opposite parties      :  Served Called absent- Exparte

J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER  

        This case coming before us for final hearing on 16.7.2015 and on hearing the arguments of the complainant and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.

1.      The case of the complaint is briefly stating as follows :

        The complainant purchased a Volvo Sedan car market name Volvo S60 – T6 Red – AWD through the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized dealer of the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.35,75,000/- on 24.10.2011 and the opposite party had developed and marketed their cars (Volvo Sedan) fitted with two airbags in front side to reduce the risk of severe head and chest injuries in collusion with certain severity for the driver and co-passenger seat on the front side.

2.      On 29.4.2014 the vehicle was being driven on the road, suddenly all the Air bags got deployed without any cause or accident and engine stopped in the middle of the road.  There was no traffic on the road at that time and a major accident got averted.  The complainant informed the opposite party about the incident over phone and waited at the site of accident for more than 5 hours anticipating the assistance from the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not turn up and did not send anybody for assistance.  However some time later the engine started and the car was taken home.

3.      The complainant requested the opposite parties to inspect the car and to give report, but the opposite parties were not inclined to inspect the car at Salem where the car was parked and insisted on the complainant to take the car to their service centre at Coimbatore for inspection which the complainant could not do in view of the defective condition of the car and the opposite parties confirmed that they will not inspect the car at Salem.

4.      The insurance companies authorized surveyor inspected the car on 12.7.2014 and submitted  his report on 15.7.2014.  As per the report

i.      Air Bag (Steering) fitted – 1 No – Opened

ii.      Air Bag dash board fitted (co driver side – 1 No-opened

iii.     Air Bag top roof shoulder RH side fitted – 2 Nos – opened

iv.     Air Bag top roof shoulder LH Side fitted – 2 Nos-opened

v.      Wind screen glass front(laminated)-1 No-broken

vi.     Except the above stated there is no any visible external damages

        found in the vehicle.

The surveyor’s opinion is as follows:

i.      “On careful inspection of the vehicle and based on the damages found on the vehicle we are of the opinion that the above damages are not due to accident by external means.

ii.      The damages to the air bag units might have happened due to manufacturing defect.  Since the co-driver side air bag lid opened and hit on the wind screen glass the same might have damaged.”

5.      As per the owners manual given by the 1^st opposite party deployment of front airbags occurs only one time during an accident.  On the other hand the deployment of Air Bags occurred without any accident which would clearly demonstrate the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  The theory of Res ipsa Loquitor is applicable.

6.      The complainant sent e-mail to the 1^st opposite party manufacturer at Sweden on 7.5.2014 and they replied to contact the 1^st opposite party for further action.  Accordingly on 8.5.2014 the complainant received communication from the opposite party stating that they would like to arrange to bring the car to the workshop for complete the inspection and to depute technical team after receiving report from the second opposite party.

7.      In the owners’ manual, the 1^st opposite party has issued a warning that in the event of deployment that should be attended by a trained and qualified Volvo Service Technician.  Failure to follow the instruction can result in injury to the vehicle and occupants and that is the reason why the complainant insisted on the inspection of the vehicle at Salem by trained Volvo Technician.  But the opposite parties refused to inspect the car at Salem and on 23.5.2014 the opposite party informed that they will not inspect the car at Salem. As manufacturer of the defective car and as the seller of the defective car respectively both the opposite parties are liable to refund the cost of the car with compensation for mental agony under gone by the complainant.  Hence, the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.35,75,000/- towards the cost of the car and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and to pay costs of Rs.50,000/-.

8.      The opposite parties remained absent before this Commission and the opposite parties 1 and 2 set were exparte on 6.11.2014.

9.      The complainant filed proof affidavit reiterating the averments in the complainant and 12 documents were filed and marked as Ex.A1 to A12 on the side of the complainant.

10.    The points for consideration are :

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

        2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties?

        3.   To what relief the complainant is entitled?

11.    POINT NOS. 1 & 2 :  Ex.A1 is the copy of the Invoice.  Ex.A2 is the copy of Certificate of Registration.  Ex.A3 is the Owners’ Manual.  Ex.A4 is the E-mail by the complainant.  Ex.A5 is the reply by the 1^st opposite party.  Ex.A6 is the rejoinder by the complainant.  Ex.A7 is the e-mail by the 1^st opposite party.  Ex.A8 is the e-mail by the complainant.  Ex.A9 is the reply by the 1^st opposite party.  Ex.A10 is the e-mail by the complainant.  Ex.A11 is the series of mails exchanged between the parties and Ex.A12 is the Survey Report.

12.    The case of the complainant is that the Air Bags got deployed without any cause or accident and the engine stopped in the middle of the road.

13.    In the Motor vehicle inspection report of the surveyor Ex.A12 the observations and the opinion are clearly mentioned. It is stated that there is no any visible external damages found in the vehicle and their opinion is that on careful inspection of the vehicle and based on the damages found in the vehicle they are of the opinion that the above damages are not due to accident by external means and the damages to the Air Bag units might have been happened due to manufacturing defects.  Since the co driver side Air bag lid opened and hit on wind screen glass the same might have damaged.  Ex.A3 which is the Owners’ Manual several details of the functions of the Air Bags along with warning are given.

14.    On perusal of Ex.A3 Owners’ Manual, Ex.A12 which is the Survey report and the correspondence Ex.A11series we conclude that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The manufacturing defect is quite apparent on the face of it and it does not warrant expert evidence and the doctrine of Res ipsa Loquitor squarely applies to the case.

15.    Therefore we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling the vehicle with manufacturing defect to the complainant.

16.    Further, refusal of the opposite parties to inspect the vehicle near the accident spot at Salem which is a major city in Tamil Nadu and insisting on the complainant to take the defective vehicle all the way to Coimbatore also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

17.    Therefore, we hold that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle as alleged by the complainant and that deficiency in service against the opposite parties is established and that the opposite parties as manufacturer and seller respectively, are bound to compensate the complainant and that the complainant is entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties and the points are answered accordingly.

18.    POINT NO.3 :  In the complaint the complainant has prayed for refund of the costs of the vehicle and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and costs of Rs.50,000/-.

19.    Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering all the relevant factors we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to refund of the cost of the vehicle and award of Rs.1,00,000/- would be the reasonable compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards costs would be reasonable and the point is answered accordingly.

19.    In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.35,75,000/- towards cost of the vehicle to the complainant on taking back the defective vehicle from the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs.

          Time for compliance :  Two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case of default to comply with the order, the amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till compliance.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                      J.JAYARAM

  MEMBER                                            PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT :

 

Sl.No	Date	Description
Ex.A1	24.10.2011	Copy of Invoice
Ex.A2	23.12.2011	Copy of Certificate of Registration
Ex.A3		Copy of Owners Manual
Ex.A4	07.05.2014	Copy of E-mail by the complainant
Ex.A5	08.05.2014	Copy of Reply by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A6	08.05.2014	Copy of Rejoinder by the complainant
Ex.A7	09.05.2014	Copy of E-mail by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A8	20.05.2014	Copy of E-mail by the complainant
Ex.A9	20.05.2014	Copy of Reply by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A10	21.05.2014	Copy of E-mail by the complainant
Ex.A11	23.05.2014	Copy of series of mails exchanged between the parties
Ex.A12		Copy of Survey Report

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                      J.JAYARAM

  MEMBER                                            PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

INDEX: YES / NO

VL/D;/PJM/CONSUMER