Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, Presiding Member, AVM J. RAJENDRA, Member
M/S. A1 FAUZ INTERNATIONAL – Appellant
Versus
AUDI INDIA & ANR. – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. NC/CC/431/2015
For the Complainant: Mr Ashutosh Kumar, Mr Himanshu Thakur
For the Opposite Parties: Mr Manish Vashishtha, Ms Ekta Bhasin, Mr Sanidhya Sonthalia, Mr R Gopalakrishnan
The burden to prove a manufacturing defect in the vehicle lay with the Complainant, which was not fulfilled as no expert opinion was presented regarding the non-deployment of airbags.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 22 - Deficiency in service - Allegation of manufacturing defect concerning airbags and brakes in an Audi A6 vehicle purchased by the Complainant - Complainant failed to establish any manufacturing defect or that the airbags did not deploy due to such defect - The non-deployment of airbags not proven to result from manufacturing error as per the technical assessment - Claim for compensation for business loss, punitive damages, and legal expenses not granted due to lack of evidence. (Paras 1-22)
(B) Consumer Status - The Complainant, having purchased a vehicle purportedly for personal use, argued their status as a consumer under the Act - However, the merits of the case regarding the claim for loss, goodwill, and profit were evaluated without the requisite expert opinion to assert manufacturing defect. (Paras 8-9, 17-21)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint detailing an accident involving a car with alleged manufacturing defects. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. claims for compensation and consumer status related to personal use of the vehicle. (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. opposing arguments on alleged manufacturing defect and response on vehicle safety features. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court determination of consumer status and burden of proof regarding defect establishment. (Para 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. final decision dismissing the complaint due to lack of evidence of manufacturing defect. (Para 21 , 22) |
ORDER
PER SUBHASH CHANDRA
1. This complaint filed under Section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) alleges deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties in respect of the car sold to the Complainant.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties contested the complaint by way of written version. Complainant thereafter filed its rejoinder. Parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit. Short synopsis of arguments was also filed by both the parties. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered the material on record and submissions made.
3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Complainant is engaged in the business of leather manufacturing and had purchased an Audi Car Model A6 of 2013 make, for the personal use of its partner, Mr Mahmood Alam, from OPPOSITE PARTY no.3 on 08.03.2013 for a sum of Rs.47,10,000/-. The said car was financed by Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, and allotted registration no. UP 78 CZ 4752. Owner’s Manual was provided to the Complainant with details of the features and safety systems provided. On 30.05.2013, while being driven from Kanpur to New Delhi by the driver along with three co-passengers who were the partners of the Complainant’s firm on a business trip, the car met with an accident. According to the Complainant, the speed of the car was 80-90 kmph when it crashed against a lorry despite the fact that the driver of the car had applied brakes immediately after spotting the sudden appearance of the lorry. This resulted in huge damage to the car on its bonnet, roof, entire left wing and also the rear windshield and resulted in the death of Mr Shahnawaz Ahmed, partner of the Complainant’s firm seated on the front passenger seat. The Opposite Party was immediately informed on telephone about the accident by the Complainant who assured that a technical team of the company would visit and inspect the car and immediate corrective action would be taken. On 06.06.2013, e-mails giving details of the accident were again sent by the Complainant to the OPPOSITE PARTY no.1 along with photographs of the accident spot and the car. According to Complainant, no technical team of OPPOSITE PARTYno.1 undertook inspection of the car at the Audi Showroom in Lucknow between 30.05.2013 and 06.06.2013 nor any immediate corrective measures were taken by Opposite Party. On 20.06.2013 an e-mail was received from Audi Lucknow asking for approval to send some parts for analysis to Germany for which consent was given.
4. On 26.06.2013, the Complainant received an e mail From OPPOSITE PARTY no.1 stating that the case had been investigated by a team of experts and per the diagnosis there was no fault with the airbags system. It was stressed that the cars were manufactured after stringent quality checks. The mail did not refer to the brake system of the car which according to the Complainant was not upto the mark leading to the accident deliberately to cover up the manufacturing defect of the vehicle by OPPOSITE PARTY nos.1 and 2. While rejecting the claim of inherent manufacturing defect in the airbags system, Opposite Party no.1 intentionally and malafidely shifted the blame on the lorry for not being fitted with any under run protection system due to which the airbag triggering threshold could not be reached and the airbags resultantly did not deploy. Due to the demise of one of the partners of the Complainant’s fi
