Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member and Mr. Prem Narain, Member
M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS P. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
TIRATH SINGH OBEROI - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2944 of 2008 (Against the Order dated 07/05/2008 in Appeal No. 841 of 2007 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
Decided on : 22-11-2016
Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent; Mr. Vipin Singhania and Mr. Rishikant, Advocates, for the Petitioner
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for expert evidence to prove a manufacturing defect and the importance of a correct appreciation of the material on record by the lower consumer fora.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Manufacturing Defect in Vehicle - 21(b) - [SRS Air bag system, Manufacturing Defect, Consumer Complaint] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically section 21(b) and the interpretation of the term 'manufacturing defect' in the context of the SRS Air bag system. The court analyzed the technical features of the Air bags, the conditions for deployment, and the expert evidence presented. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of expert evidence supporting the claim of manufacturing defect and the absence of a correct appreciation of the material on record by the Consumer Fora below.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a car with an SRS Air bag system, which failed to deploy during an accident. The District Forum found a manufacturing defect and awarded compensation. The State Commission upheld the decision. The petitioner challenged the decision, arguing that it was an angular collision and the Air bags were designed for frontal collisions only.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the collision was an oblique or angular collision, not a head-on collision, and examined the deployment conditions for the Air bags. It concluded that the complainants failed to prove a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and dismissed the consumer complaint.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle's SRS Air bag system. 2. The applicability of compensation for the alleged defect.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of expert evidence supporting the claim of manufacturing defect and the absence of a correct appreciation of the material on record by the Consumer Fora below.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the orders passed by the consumer fora below were set aside. The consumer complaint was dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member - This revision petition has been filed u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 07.05.2008, passed by the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in appeal No. 841/2007, "M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Tirath Singh Oberoi," vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 25.10.2007, passed by the District Forum UT Chandigarh, in consumer complaint No. 841/2005, was upheld.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Tirath Singh Oberoi purchased a Toyota Corolla car from M/s. Pioneer Toyota, Opposite Party (OP-2), manufactured by the petitioner/OP-1 Toyota Kirloskar Motors Limited for a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/-. The said car was delivered on 17.05.2004 and it was duly registered vide registration No. CH03P 2012. In the said car, SRS Air bag system had been provided for better protection of the driver and the accompanying person in the case of accident. It was stated in the consumer complaint that the said car met with an accident on the night of 11 12 September 2005, when it was hit by a Swaraj Mazda Truck, which came from the right hand side at the crossing of Sector 45/46 and Sector 49/50 in Chandigarh. The driver of the said truck, while avoiding to hit a scooter, swayed the truck towards the car and the said truck hit on the front head-light area, on the right hand side of the car (driver side). It is mentioned in the consumer complaint that the SRS Air bag did not deploy during the accident, but the complainant, escaped with bruises and some blunt injuries. It was alleged that the Air bag system did not work due to some manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant filed the consumer complaint, in question, seeking directions to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/-, i.e., the cost of the car along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of its purchase till realisation, OR to replace the car with a new car. It was also demanded that a sum of Rs. 25 lakh should be paid to the complainant as compensation for injuries and mental trauma along with Rs. 22,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. The consumer complaint was contested by the respondents by filing a written statement before the District Forum saying that there was no manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. It was further stated that the SRS (Supplementary Restraint System) Air bags in a car were designed to provide further protection for the driver and front passenger in addition to the primary safety protection provided by the seat belts. The SRS Air bag will deploy if the severity of the impact is above the designed threshold level. The conditions under which the Air bags would open had been explained in the owner's manual and also in the Safety Book provided to the complainant. The OPs also stated that there was an angular collision in the present case and there being no direct frontal collision, the SRS Air bag in the vehicle did not deploy. It was evident from the photographs appended with the complaint that the Truck collided with the front right side of the said vehicle and hence, the collision being angular, it did not cause the activation of crash sensor and consequent inflation of the inflammatory unit with the Air bag. It is denied that there was any defect in the design of the vehicle or the Air bags.
4. The District Forum after considering the averments made by the parties, allowed the complaint vide their order dated 25.10.2007 and directed the OP-1 manufacturer to pay a sum of Rs. 9,45,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. since 1.10.2005 till payment along with Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 21,000/- as cost of litigation. The District Forum concluded that the vehicle had manufacturing defect due to the wrong positioning of the censor and hence, the Air bags did not deploy. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OPs challenged the same by way
