V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—Complainant No.1, Dr. Richard Raja Singh, and his son, R. Backiaraj Vinuben, purchased a Ford Mondeo car on 19-03-2004 for a consideration of Rs.17,41,642/-. On 31-05-2004 the first, second and third complainants were travelling to Thirunelvelli, along with their family members. Late Manuben Joshua Raj and Backiaraj Vinuben, sons of the first and second complainants, Mrs. Jacinth wife of Manuben Joshua Raj and Mrs. Santra wife of Backiaraj Vinuben were travelling in the Ford Mondeo car and the said car was being driving by deceased R. Manuben Joshua Raj, whereas the first, second and the third complainants were in another car. At about 5:45 P.M., when their vehicles reached National Highway near Irattai Malai, a Tata 407 vehicle rammed sideways on the left side of the Ford Mondeo car. All the four passengers travelling in the car died on the spot.

The case of the complainants is that the air bags, which were supposed to deploy immediately on the collision, did not deploy at all. The passengers were taken to a nearby hospital, but were declared brought dead. The first and second complainants are the parents of Manuben Joshua Raj and Backiaraj Vinuben, the third complainant is the son of Manuben Joshua Raj and Mrs. Jacinth whereas the 4th and 5th complainants are the mothers of Mrs. Jacinth and Mrs. Santra. The complainants are, thus, alleging that a faulty product was sold to them by the opposite parties, since while selling the vehicle they claimed that it had world class safety features, including the state of the art air bag system, which protects the passengers in the event of an accident, whereas in fact neither the front air bags nor the side air bags got deployed, despite heavy impact by Tata 407. It is further alleged that though the opposite parties claimed that their cars are subject to stringent tests of international standards, the said representation was false as would be evident from the fact that the air bag deployment system of the vehicle was defective and faulty. This is also the case of the complainant that a manufacturer must anticipate the environment in which the product would be used and design it against reasonably foreseeable risks attending the product and the defective design which fails to prevent injury, when preventable, renders the manufacturer liable, if the risk is reasonably foreseeable. Yet another allegation of the complainants is that the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice, by projecting the safety features of their vehicle to be amongst the best in the market, whereas in fact they were not so and had miserably failed to protect the life of the passengers. According to the complainants the opposite parties made tall claims with respect to the safety features of the vehicle, only with a view to promote their sale and thereby indulge into deceptive trade practices.

2. The complainants are seeking a sum of Rs.17,41,632/- being the price of the car paid by them, Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards compensation for loss, injury and mental agony and Rs.8,00,00,000/- towards punitive damages for the defective and faulty service by the opposite parties.

3. In its reply opposite party No.1-Ford Motors Co. Ltd. inter alia claimed that it was an American company having no office at the address given in the cause list and it had neither manufactured nor sold the subject car and, therefore, the complaint is bad for its joinder. It was further stated that Ford cars being sold in India are manufactured in Belgium and, therefore, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. The opposite party No.1 also took a preliminary objection that the complaint is beyond the limitation period prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is alleged that during inspection by opposite party No.2 it was found that the said air bags did deploy but the left B pillar of the car collapsed due to massive im