Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vineet Saran, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Hyundai Motor India Limited – Appellants
Versus
Shailendra Bhatnagar – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3001 of 2022 (Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4881 of 2021)
Decided on : 20-04-2022
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14 – Automobile – Manufacturing Defect – Airbags of vehicle did not deploy at the time of collision – National Commission dismissed appeal sustaining compensation awarded by State Commission – Ordinarily, a consumer while purchasing a vehicle with airbags would assume that same would be deployed whenever there is a collision from front portion of vehicle (in respect of front airbags) – There are findings of two Fora about defect in vehicle – There was frontal damage – Airbags did not deploy – Accident caused injuries to respondent – No reason to interfere with finding of National Commission – Consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics calculating impact of a collision on theories based on velocity and force – State Commission relied on principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur to affix liability of manufacturer as regards defect in airbag system, having regard to nature of collision – National Commission affirmed this finding referring to certain photographs of damaged vehicle, which showed substantial frontal damage – In such circumstances, both Fora took the view that expert evidence was not necessary in subject case – Such view cannot be faulted as being unreasonable, in given facts – Relief granted to respondent comes within statutory framework – Directions issued against appellant by State Commission and upheld by National Commission cannot be said to have failed test of proportionality – Appeal dismissed.(Paras 4, 9, 10, 15 and 16)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24-A – Sale of Goods Act, 1930 – Section 16 – Consumer complaint – Limitation – In complaint, it has been pleaded that respondent had relied on safety features of vehicle projected by manufacturer – In such a situation, limitation will run from the day defect surfaces in a case – There is no way by which nature of defect complained against could be identified in normal circumstances at an earlier date, before collision took place – In this case, safety feature of vehicle fell short of quality of fitness as was represented manufacturer by implication – National Commission’s view is broadly based on principle incorporated in Section 16 of 1930 Act – Defect in this case ought to be treated to have had surfaced on the date of accident itself. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
Appellant are manufacturers of vehicles and the present appeal arises out of a complaint made by the respondent concerning defect in a vehicle, particularly in relation to its safety features originating from the appellant, of the model Creta 1.6 VTVT SX+. The vehicle came with two front airbags. Purchase of vehicle was made on 21st August 2015. It met with an accident on Delhi-Panipat highway on 16th November 2017 resulting in substantial damage to its RH front pillar, RH front roof, side body panels, front RH door panels and LH front wheel suspension. The initials RH and LH appears to be used as short forms of Right Hand and Left Hand sides of the vehicle. At that point of time, complainant (being the respondent herein), his mother and daughter were in the vehicle. The airbags of the vehicle did not deploy at the time of collision. The complainant suffered head, chest as also dental injuries. He attributes such injuries to non-deployment of airbags at the time of accident.
Findings of Court:
Directions issued against the appellant by the State Commission and upheld by National Commission cannot be said to have failed the test of proportionality. We hold so as we find subject-defect to be of such nature that the provisions relating to punitive damages ought to be attracted against the appellant.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Aniruddha Bose, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant are manufacturers of vehicles and the present appeal arises out of a complaint made by the respondent concerning defect in a vehicle, particularly in relation to its safety features originating from the appellant, of the model Creta 1.6 VTVT SX+. The vehicle came with two front airbags. Purchase of the vehicle was made on 21st August 2015. It met with an accident on the Delhi-Panipat highway on 16th November 2017 resulting in substantial damage to its RH front pillar, RH front roof, side body panels, front RH door panels and LH front wheel suspension. The initials RH and LH appears to be used as short forms of Right Hand and Left Hand sides of the vehicle. At that point of time, the complainant (being the respondent herein), his mother and daughter were in the vehicle. The airbags of the vehicle did not deploy at the time of collision. The complainant suffered head, chest as also dental injuries. He attributes such injuries to non-deployment of airbags at the time of accident. The appellant themselves obtained an investigation report which has been referred to as SRS report. The remarks and conclusion of the said SRS Investigation Report, as it appears from pages 53 and 54 of the paperbook were:-
" Remarks:
Vehicle found with major damage on RH front pillar, RH Side body panels and LH front wheel suspension.
Under ride & Angular impact found on the RH Front Pillar, Roof and Front RH Door panel.
Grazing damages found on the RH side panels due to the scratch against truck while moving towards left.
Findings:
No crash info recorded in SRSCM, hence no air bags deployed.
No impact damage observed on both side chassis members, damages found away from impact sensors.
Vehicle found completely dismantled and mid-repair condition during inspection.
Conclusion:
The major impact to the vehicle from RH pillar resulted in under ride and angular condition.
Both front chassis member found unaffected by the frontal impact, hence no impact sensed by the front impact sensors and not triggered any signal to SRSCM (No crash info recorded in SRSCM for frontal impact).
After thorough study, it is confirmed that the condition was not met for the air bag deployment, hence no air bags deployed. The air bag system was working proper at the time of accident.
Accident description:
As per customer verbatim, while he was driving at 100 kmph speed on Gannaur highway. A front going truck applied sudden brake, his car hit to the truck from the right side to the left rear corner of the Truck. Further his car scratched against the truck while moving towards left side of the road and finally hit to some stones on the left front wheel and vehicle stopped." (quoted verbatim)
3. The Delhi State Consumer Redressal Commission, in a complaint raised by the respondent, upheld his claim. The main theme of his complaint was that the main reason for his purchase decision of the model was because of its safety features including the airbags and the injury was suffered by him because of non-deployment of the airbags. The State Commission granted relief to the following effect:-
"19. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present consumer complaint, we direct the opposite party to:
a. Compensate the complainant an amout of Rs. 2,00,000/- for medical expenses and loss of income.
b. Compensate the complainant an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony.
c. Pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation.
20. The aforesaid payment shall be made by opposite party within two months from the date of this order by way of demand draft. Failure of opposite party in paying the said amount in stipulated period will attract an interest of 7% per annum from the date of default. Furthermore, failure in replacing the vehicle of the appellant will also attract an interest of 7% per annum of the value of the vehicle from the date of default."
4. The appellant preferred appeal before the National Consumer Disp
(1) Consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics calculating impact of a collision on theories based on velocity and force.(2) Limitation will run from the day defect surfaces in a case.
Compensation held justified for non-opening of front airbags on accident of car.
Manufacturing defect in vehicle must be established by adducing expert evidence.
Res ipsa loquitur applies to infer manufacturing defect in airbags from non-deployment without expert evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
