Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Vinay Kumar Chawla, Presiding Member and Meena Mehta, Member
ALOK GOYAL - Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN AUTO HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED - Respondent
Complaint No. 09 of 2008
Decided on : 22-12-2016
Mr Jitendra Mitruka, Advocate, for the Appellant; Sunil Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1; Jai Prakash, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2
The importance of producing sufficient evidence, including the survey report and medical records, to substantiate claims of manufacturing defects in products.
Headnote:
Manufacturing Defect - Car Accident - SRS Control Module, SRS Service Reminder Indicator, Driver's Air Bag Module, Passengers Air Bag Module - The court discussed the allegations of manufacturing defect in the car's airbag system, focusing on the SRS control module and the deployment of airbags during the accident. The court emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the manufacturing defect and highlighted the importance of producing the survey report and medical records to substantiate the claim.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a car that was involved in an accident, alleging a manufacturing defect in the airbag system. The opposite party denied the defect and questioned the lack of evidence and delay in filing the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the manufacturing defect claim, including the absence of medical records and the survey report. The court also noted the delay in filing the complaint and the lack of communication with the dealer or manufacturer after the accident.
Issues: Alleged manufacturing defect in the car's airbag system, lack of evidence supporting the claim, delay in filing the complaint, and failure to communicate with the dealer or manufacturer after the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of producing the survey report and medical records to substantiate the claim of a manufacturing defect. The court also highlighted the lack of communication with the dealer or manufacturer after the accident and the delay in filing the complaint.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed due to the lack of evidence supporting the manufacturing defect claim and the failure to communicate with the dealer or manufacturer after the accident.
ORDER
Vinay Kumar Chawla, Presiding Member. - The brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that complainant purchased a Hyundai Elentra Car from the opposite party No. 1 in the month of April 2005. The opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer. Unfortunately this car met with an accident on 3.5.2006 near Bundi while it collided with a truck No. HR-38-K-6248. At the time of accident the car was being driven by the complainant. It was a head-on collision with truck. The complainant has stated that at the time of accident the Air Bag of the driver side did not open with the result driver was badly injured. However, the Air Bag of other side did open. The complainant filed this complainant alleging manufacturing defect in the car. The complainant was badly injured. He has prayed for refund of the cost of the car amounting to Rs. 10,62,000 along with 3.5% insurance charges and 3.5 registration charges deducting Rs. 7.85 lakh paid by the Insurance Company. He has also prayed for hospitalization charges for his treatment amounting to Rs. 10 lakh and Rs. 20 lakh as compensation for mental agony and physical discomfort.
2. The opposite party No. 2 has submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the car. They have submitted that complainant has said that passenger side Air Bag did open. If there was any defect in Supplementary Restraint System (SRS) none of the air bag will deploy in case of accident. The SRS consist of SRS Control Module, SRS Service Reminder Indicator and Driver's Air Bag Module and Passengers Air Bag Module, The SRSCM continually monitors all elements while the ignition is 'ON' to determine if a frontal or near frontal impact is severe enough to require bag deployment.
3. The opposite party No. 1 has filed its reply and has submitted that complainant has filed this complaint only in order to claim, the balance amount which was refused by the Insurance Company while passing the claim for Rs. 7,85,000. It is submitted that no details of medical treatment has been filed along with complaint. No details of medical expenses have been filed. It was also submitted that this vehicle met with an accident thrice before that and on 13.10.2005 this vehicle was serviced by an unauthorized service center. They have submitted that after accident the vehicle was never brought to them. They have also submitted that there could be various reasons when the Air Bag does not deploy like driver had not fastened seat belt, speed of vehicle was excessively low or fast, Battery was down, coolant or engine oil are deficient, etc.
4. The complainant has filed along with complaint the papers of police investigation and judgment of the criminal Court, convicting the driver of the truck. The complaint has been supported by an affidavit of the complainant also.
5. The opposite party No. 2 has filed a copy of manual of the car which state the operation of SRS.
6. The opposite party No. 1 has filed the details of history of this car when it came to Service Center for service and repair.
7. The complainant on the basis of damage memo prepared by the Investigating Officer has argued that at the time of accident when the vehicle was inspected by the Investigating Officer, he has specifically mentioned that driver's Air Bag had not opened and this clearly establishes the fact that Air Bag was defective. He has submitted that driver has sustained multiple injuries and fractures. He had been hospitalized for a long time therefore the complaint was filed on the last day of limitation. He has also submitted that opposite party No. 1 has not proved that Air Bag did not deploy for the reason as described in para 16 of their reply.
8. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has submitted that after accident the vehicle was not brought to them and no information was given to them. He submitted that there is no expert opinion that there was any manufacturing defect in the car. He has submitted that damage report prepared by the police is mani
