Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3605
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER, AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.), 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, Advocate with Mr Himanshu Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties:Mr Manish Vashishtha, Sr Advocate with Ms Ekta Bhasin, Advocate with Mr Sanidhya Sonthalia, Advocate for OP 1, Mr R Gopalakrishnan, Advocate for OP 2
Failure to establish a manufacturing defect due to non-deployment of airbags led to dismissal of the complaint; expert evidence was crucial and not provided.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 22 - Deficiency in service - Complaint by purchaser of a vehicle alleging manufacturing defects after a fatal accident - Opposite parties denied liability, attributing fault to external factors - Onus on complainant to prove defects not established - Section 38 - Expert opinion not provided to substantiate claims. (Paras 1, 17, 21)
(B) Punitive damages - Criteria for awarding punitive damages in case of manufacturing defect - Evidence inadequate to establish entitlement for punitive damages. (Paras 10, 21)
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased an Audi A6, suffered an accident leading to a partner's death, claiming that airbags did not deploy due to manufacturing defects, resulting in significant financial loss and seeking damages for loss of business and reputation.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the complainant failed to provide expert evidence of a manufacturing defect and that the accident and damages did not warrant punitive damages or compensation. The airbags’ non-deployment was explained satisfactorily by the opposite parties.
Issues: Whether the complainant established a manufacturing defect causing injury and loss, and whether punitive damages were justifiable given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without expert testimony to prove claims of a manufacturing defect, and given the circumstances of the accident as described, the complainant's arguments were insufficient to sustain the request for damages. The lack of mechanical failure evidence inherent from the accident undermined the claim. (Paras 21, 22)
Result: The complaint is found to be unsustainable and dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filed regarding manufacturing defects and accidents. (Para 1 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. court's assessment on sufficiency of evidence. (Para 2 , 10 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. arguments concerning liability and causation presented. (Para 4 , 8 , 12) |
| 4. decision on expert testimony and defect claims. (Para 21) |
| 5. final verdict dismissing the complaint. (Para 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 firm, many of the business expansion plans of Complainant’s firm had to be shelved resulting in huge financial loss of profit approximating Rs.12.25 crores. It was further stated that the vehic
