Complainant Rajesh Vashishta (hereinafter referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (now Commission) against Lally Motors and others (here-in-after referred as opposite parties).
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Volkswagen car bearing Chassis No.WVWH15163FA551736, Engine No. CLC108019 manufactured by opposite party No.3, from opposite party No.1 who is authorized dealer of opposite party No.3 at Ludhiana vide Invoice No.327 dated 29.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.19,85,779/- including Surcharges, Vat and Discount etc.
It is alleged that before purchasing the said car, the complainant was assured by opposite party No.1 and authorized representative of opposite party No.3 that the said car is of best quality with all modern amenties including Air Bags and had assured the complainant that in case of any accident of the car, due to one reason or the other, the air bags of the car will automatically deploy/open to save the occupants of the car from sustaining injuries and for their protection. Bonafidely believing the words of opposite parties No.1 & 3, the complainant purchased the said car by spending huge amount and since the car was having facility of Air Bags, the manufacturer of the car charged extra price for the said facility.
It is further alleged that said car of the complainant met with a major accident on the intervening night of 30/31.01.2019 and at the time of the accident, the air bags of the car did not open, as a result of which, the complainant who was travelling in the said car, sustained multiple grievous injuries on his person and the car has also been extensively damaged. The complainant remained admitted in Max Superspeciality Hospital, Bathinda and has undergone treatment w.e.f 31.01.2019 to 04.02.2019 for the injuries sustained by him and spent huge amount on his treatment. The car in question is lying parked in the workshop of opposite party No.2 at Bathinda.
The complainant also alleged that the air bags of the car did not open due to the manufacturing defect in the car and due to the said reason, the complainant suffered from huge risk of life but he has been saved by the grace of Almighty otherwise it could have been fatal to the life of the complainant.
If the air bags of the car would have worked and deployed/opened at the time of accident, the complainant would have been saved from multiple injuries. The complainant repeatdly requested the opposite parties to admit his lawful claim and to replace the aforesaid defective car with new one or in alteranative to refund the total amount to the complainant but to no effect rather the opposite parties flatly refused to accede to the requests of the complainant.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to replace the aforesaid defective car with new one or in the alternative to refund the total amount of Rs. 19,85,779/- and also pay to complainant Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
On the statement of learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No. 2 was deleted vide order dated 9-7-2019 from the array of the parties.
Upon notice, opposite parties No. 1 & 3 put an appearance through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written reply.
The opposite party No. 1 in its written reply raised legal objections that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. That the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and is bad in the eyes of law. That the allegations made by the complainant are totally false, fabricated and baseless.
It has been pleaded that opposite party No. 1 is dealer of the volkswagon (opposite party No.3), who is manufacturer. The complainant purchased the car in question, model 2015 JETTA Highline AT TDI through opposite party No. 1 at his own with his free and sweet will and there was no manufacturing defect in the car or its any part or air bags and the air bags of the car were functioning properly and correctly. Before delivery, the vehicle and its entire parts are being checked by the opposite party No.3 and in this regard, a certification has also been issued by opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 1 is only seller and the vehicle in question was Okay in all respects. There was no defect of any kind whatsoever in any part of the car. The technical support with regard to the same was of the opposite party No.2 and the services of the same was got conducted by complainant from opposite party No.2 The entire story of the complainant put fourth in the complaint is false, baseless and concocted. Regarding alleged accident, no document has been ever furnished by the complainant to the opposite parties. No DDR about the alleged accident was lodged by the complainant nor the complainant ever made any information about the same. There is no description about the alleged accident. The claim lodged by the complainant is false and the opposite parties are not liable to the same.
Further legal objections are that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts of omission, commission, conduct and acquiescence. That the complaint itself does not disclose any cause of action and it is false, frivolous and vexatious.
On merits, the opposite party No. 1 after reiterating its version as pleaded in legal objections and detailed above, further pleaded that the alleged accident did not take place due to any impact with the bumper and this fact is also clear from the photographs attached by the complainant rather the alleged accident took place due to impact with some other part of the vehicle. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
The opposite party No. 3 in its written reply raised preliminary objections that it has no privity of contract with the complainant as opposite party No. 3 does not sell cars to the customers directly and that the complainant has made a baseless allegations regarding having manufacturing defect in the car without substantiating the same with any expert report.
On merits, it has been pleaded that Volkswagen car bearing chassis number WVWH15163FA551736 was manufactured by Skoda Auto India Pvt.Ltd and for the same the warranty was provided by Volkswagen Group sales India Pvt.Ltd. Both these companies have merged into opposite party No.3 (Volkswagen India Pvt.Ltd.,) now known with its changed name Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd., and consequently, the liablity of manufacturer is assumed by opposite party No. 3.
It has been further pleaded that that Air Bags are safety features in a vehicle and doesn't deploy or open in case of all kinds of accidents or collision impacts. The air bag in a vehicle deploys or opens in case there is a significant frontal impact on the car and there is a deceleration/slowing down of the vehicle on account of a collision impact. The air bag control unit of the car was effectively functioning without any kind of defect whatsoever detected. The photo-graphs submitted by the complaint clearly establish the fact that there was no significant frontal or side impact on the car as the bumper of the car was intact.The impact on the car from the photograph is seen on the upper part of the car that is on wind shield and side bonnet and these are soft parts from the collison perspective. Therefore, the airbags of the vehicle didn't open as the air bags control unit didn't detect an impact on the car. The air bags works on this logic irrespective of a car company. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 3 also prayed for dismissed of complaint.
In support of his version, the complainant has tendered into evidence his Affidavit dated 08.07.2019(Ex.C-1), photocopy of Invoice (Ex.C-2), photocopy of R.C. (Ex.C-3), photocopy of Discharge summary (Ex.C-4) and Photographs (Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-10).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit dated 3-9-2019 of Amrit Pal Singh (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of delivery acknowledgement note (Ex. OP-1/2) and resolution (Ex. OP-1/3).
The opposite party No. 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 30-8-2019 of Ramendra Sharma (Ex. OP-3/1) and photocopy of warranty terms and conditions.
We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.
The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is manufactruing defect in the car in question as on the intervening night of 30/31-01-2019 car met with an accident and at the time of accident, Air bags of the car did not deploy/open due to which complainant, who was travelling in the said car, sustained multiple injuries on his person and car of the complainant has also been extensively damaged. Thus, complainant is entitled to the replacement of the car in question with new one or refund of its price.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that Air Bags are safety features in a vehicle and doesn't deploy or open in case of all kinds of accidents or collision impacts. The air bag in a vehicle deploys or opens in case there is a significant frontal impact on the car and there is a deceleration/slowing down of the vehicle on account of a collision impact. The learned counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that as is clear from the photographs placed on file by the complainant, there was no significant frontal or side impact on the car as the bumper of the car was intact. The impact on the car from the photograph is seen on the upper part of the car that is on wind shield and side bonnet and these are soft parts from collision perspective. The air-bags of the vehicle did not open as the air bag control unit did not detect an impact on the car. Therefore, only for the reason that air bags did not open at the time of accident, it cannot be said that there is no manufacturing defect in the car in question. Moreover, complainant has not placed any document/expert evidence on file to prove manufacturing defect. Hence, complainant is not entitled to any relief and complaint deserves dismissal.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.
In the case in hand, the car of the complainant met with an accident and complainant sustained multiple injuries on his person as airbags of the car did not deploy/open at the time of accident. To prove his version, the complainant has placed on file photographs of the car Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-10 and discharge summary of complainant issued by Max Hospaital, Bathinda. The photographs of the damaged vehicle clearly show the impact of the accident on the vehicle.
The complainant has claimed replacement of car in question or in the alternative refund of its price on the ground that there is manufacturing defect in the car as the air bags of the car did not open at the time of accident. The complainant has not alleged any other defect in the car in question. The complainant has placed on file discharge summary of Max Hospital, Bathinda, but no medical bills showing expenses incurred on the treatment has been placed on file.
So far as the matter regarding not opening of air bags of the car in question at the time of accident is concerned, highlighting safety features including airbags while selling the car and not elaborating and disclosing the threshold limits for their opening is by itself an unfair trade practice.
Opposite parties could not bring on file any document to show that complainant was made known that under which conditions Air Bags will only deploy. Opposite parties has also failed to bring on file any cerificate that before delivery entire parts of vehicle were checked and pre-delivery inspection (PDI) was done.
Photographs placed on file by the complainant (Ex.C-5 to Ex. C-10) shows damage to the car. Facts speak for themselves, So, no expert opinion required in this case. This is a case where doctrine “Res Ipsa Liquitur” is applicable as the photographs of the damage vehicle shows the impact of accident on vehicle.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3001 of 2022 decided on 20-4-2022 case titled Hyundai Motor India Limited Vs. Shailendra Bhatnagar, has observed that :-
“10. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the National Commission. We would like to add here that ordinarily a consumer while purchasing a vehicle with airbags would assume that the same would be deployed whenever there is a collision from the front portion of the vehicle (in respect of front airbags). Both the fora, in their decision, have highlighted the fact that there was significant damage to the front portion of the vehicle. Deployment of the airbags ought to have prevented injuries being caused to those travelling in the vehicle, particularly in the front seat. A consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics calculating the impact of a collision on the theories based on velocity and force. In such circumstances, we do not find that there is any error in the findings of the two fora as regards there being defect in the vehicle.”
Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No. 14 of said order also observed :-
“14. We are dealing with a case where in a collision, the airbags did not deploy. The complainant, driving the vehicle, suffered substantial injuries as a result thereof. The impact of the collision was such that it would have been reasonable for the respondent to assume that there would have been deployment of the airbags. The safety description of the goods fell short of its expected quality. The content of the owner's manual does not carry any material from which the owner of a vehicle could be alerted that in a collision of this nature, the airbags would not deploy. Purchase decision of the respondent-complainant was largely made on the basis of representation of the safety features of the vehicle.”
Thus, keeping in view the evidence placed on file by the parties and the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited case, this Commission is of the considered opinion that deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties stands proved.
Now the question for determination is regarding relief to which complainant is held entitled to. Deployment of airbags ought to have prevented injuries being caused to those travelling in the vehicle. Consumer expects airbags to deploy and protect him/her and any passengers in vehicle. If airbags did not deploy during a car accident, passengers can experience severe and life-threatening injuries, as in this case complainant sustained multiple injuries. Moreover, this commission is of the view that opposite parties must have taken extra amount for vehicle having such like extra safety features. So examplary cost should be imposed upon them. Therefore, it would meet the ends of justice if an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation in lump-sum is allowed to complainant with direction to opposite parties No. 1 &3 to replace the Airbags control unit and Airbags of the car in question, with new one.
In the result, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.2,00,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties No. 1 &3. The opposite parties No.1 &3 are further directed to replace the Airbags control unit and Airbags of the car in question of the complainant with new one.
The compliance of this order be made by opposite parties No. 1 & 3 jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. till realization.
The complainant could not be decided within statutory period due to Covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
