BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.93 of 2022

      Date of Instt. 24.03.2022

      Date of Decision: 17.02.2023

Parvesh Kumar aged 45 years s/o Sh. Bhajan Lal r/o H. No.2118, Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Studd Accessories Ltd. 23/7, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh,          Faridabad through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

2.       Sachin Autos, authorized dealer of Studd Helmet, Shop No.48,         Sehdev Market, Backside GPO Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.

….….. Opposite Parties

          Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Rajiv Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. A. P. Arora, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased the helmet of company ‘Studd’ under the bonafide impression that helmet of that company are safe and perfect. The complainant was going on his bike on 05.10.2020 wearing the helmet of the OP company (Studds IS4151) CWL 9169691 Marka as purchased from Jalandhar and while driving, the said bike, the complainant met with road side accident at about 10 AM and fall down on the road, the wearing helmet suddenly broken while hitting with the road and accordingly the complainant received various multiple injuries as on head and as well as on face. Thereafter, the complainant in serious condition was got admitted in a well reputed hospital namely, ‘Capitol Hospital’, Jalandhar and where he remained admitted from 05.10.2020 to 21.10.2020. During his admission in the said hospital, the complainant has gone through various surgeries as done by the well reputed Neuro Surgeon of said hospital. Even after his discharge from the said hospital, the complainant is still under the treatment and already gone through various surgery/medical clinic tests from time to time. At the time of purchase of the said helmet, it was told by the concerned seller that the said helmet is perfectly safe from all the angles and further company is a well reputed company in the field of manufacturing ‘Helmets’ and further it was told that in case any mis-happening due to road side accident occurred, then in that situation that helmet would save the person, while driving the vehicle from any type of head/face injuries and accordingly bonafidely believing the version to be true, the complainant purchased the said helmet and thus used to wear the same while driving his bike. On the said date of incident of the accident dated 05.10.2020, the complainant was wearing the helmet as manufactured by the respondent company, but while falling on the road, the said helmet was badly broken and accordingly the complainant has received multiple face and head injuries. On account of receiving multiple face injuries, the face of the complainant has been disfigured. The current photographs of the complainant as well as his earlier photographs as clicked before the said incident of the said road accident in which the complainant has become the victim shows that the face of the complainant is badly disfigured. It is worthwhile to mention over here that one eye site of the complainant is permanently gone away and thus the complainant has become permanent handicapped in that respect. The complainant is still under treatment and thus in addition to incurring the medical expenses, the complainant is still facing the pains physically and mentally. The medical bills and the record regarding treatment of the complainant right from 05.10.2020 till date are on record. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- under the head of medical expenses and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed as such. The complainant has neither submitted the entire set of relevant documents nor has brought on record the entire set of facts/information before this Commission and this complaint is liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone. It is further averred that the OP No. 1 is India's leading manufacturer and one of India's first indigenous helmet manufacturers. The reputation OP No.1 is owing to the fact of its keen focus on ensuring customer satisfaction while continuing to provide high-quality goods, cutting design, ergonomics and affordability. The OP No.1 is being represented by its authorized representative, Mr. Manish Mehta, who is employed as a Chief Financial Officer with the OP No. 1. It is further averred that the OP No.1, in order to ensure that its products, meet the required safety standards, maintains an in-house testing laboratory approved by Spanish Automotive Homologation Company. Applus IDIADA, The United Kingdom's Vehicle Certification Agency and the Bureau of Indian Standards, India. The OP has only attached the certificates issued in favour of the OP of the previous three years. However, the OP categorically submits that in-house labs of the plants of the OP have been accredited with safety certification from various agencies for more than two decades. The Complainant has alleged that the deficiency in a product manufactured by the OP No.1. The photograph of the impugned product which has been provided by the Complainant along with the complaint is very unclear and hazy and the OP is unable to even identify the said impugned product. That based on the said unclear pictures, the impugned product resembles the 'CHROME ECO' helmet manufactured by the OP No. 1. The OP prays that the Complainant be directed to submit the impugned product before the Commission to enable the OP to identify the impugned product. The OP further craves the liberty of this Commission to amend its defence in case it is seen that the said helmet is found to be some other helmet. It is further averred that it is essential to state that the helmets manufactured by the OP are also approved by the Bureau of Indian Standards, the national standards body under the BIS Act, 2016. The impugned helmet has been certified by the Bureau of India Standards after conducting thorough testing as required by law and industry standards. Furthermore, the Studds Chrome helmet has been certified to be compliant with the IS 4151:2015 standards. It is an admitted position of fact that the impugned helmet had an ISI mark bearing class IS 4151:2015, which itself evidences that there were no defects in the impugned product and the impugned product was manufactured in a manner adhering to the legal and industrial standards. As per the current legal requirement in India, it is mandatory that all helmets for motor vehicles adhere to the IS 4151:2015 safety regulations. It is, hence, submitted that all products sold by the OP No. 1 comply with the legal safety requirements as required by law. It is further averred that the Complainant has not even mentioned the details of the purchase such as the date of purchase, batch number, price of purchase, manufacturing date and plant address of the impugned helmet claimed to be purchased from OP No.2 bearing the brand name of OP No.1. Therefore, the OP is unable to bring on record the testing results and other required information which may relate to the products manufactured by the OP No.1 during the said period. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed as such. The complainant has neither submitted the entire set of relevant documents nor has brought on record the entire set of facts/information before this Commission and this complaint is liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone. The OP No.2 is the authorized dealer of OP No.1 and is operating out of the shop having the above mentioned address. It is further averred that the complainant has not even mentioned the details of the purchase such as the date of purchase, batch number, price of purchase, manufacturing date and plant address of the impugned helmet claimed to be purchased from OP No.2 bearing the brand name of the OP No.1. Therefore, the OP is unable to bring on verify whether the impugned helmet was sold by the OP No.2. The photograph of the impugned product which has been provided by the complainant alongwith the complaint is very unclear and hazy and the OP is unable to even identify the said impugned product. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

5.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the counsel for both the parties very minutely.

7.                The complainant has alleged that he purchased Helmet of company studds considering that the helmet of the company is safe. He has produced on record the photographs of the helmet Ex.C-1 and the photos of damaged helmet Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5. He has also produced on record the photographs of the complainant Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3. It has been alleged by the complainant that on 05.10.2020, the complainant met with a road accident and he fell down on the road. The wearing helmet suddenly broke while hitting with the road and has alleged the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as he suffered multiple injuries due to inferior quality of helmet. Ex.C-6 is the record of Capital Hospital from where the complainant got treatment when he met with an accident and suffered head injuries. He has also produced on record the photographs of the shop Ex.C-7 from where he allegedly purchased the helmet.

8.                Though, the complainant has produced on record his treatment record from Capital Hospital. It may be correct. He might have suffered the injuries because of the road accident. The photographs of the helmet have been produced on record. The helmet has also been damaged, but the complainant has nowhere mentioned the detail of the product purchased by him from the OP nor he has mentioned any model number, batch number or price or any memo or invoice to prove this fact that he purchased the helmet of OP No.1 from OP No.2. Even the date has not been mentioned nor proved as to when he has purchased the helmet. OPs can be held liable for any deficiency only if the deficiency by the OPs is proved. It is well settled law that the complainant is to prove his own case and the burden of proof would shift on the OP only if the complainant discharges his burden of proving the fact, but there is no document on the file to show that he purchased the helmet from the OPs or there is any warranty or guarantee given by the OP that no injury shall be caused to the rider. So, there is nothing on record to prove the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

17.02.2023         Member                          Member           President