IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

PRESENT: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER C.C.No.10/2014 Date of complaint filed : 06.05.2014 Date of orders pronounced : 05.09.2022 Mr.G.Arun, S/o Mr.T.Gunasekaran, M/s.Parvathy Trade Centre, A2/2, K.K.Nagar Main Road, Madurai District, Tamilnadu, Pin Code-625 020. Complainant -Vs-

1. M/s.General Motors India (Pvt.)Limited, Through its Managing Director, Having office at Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol, Pamch Mahal District, Gujarat – Pincode: 389 351. 1st Opposite Party

2. The President, M/s.General Motors India (Pvt.)Limited, Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol, Pamch Mahal District, Gujarat – Pincode: 389 351. 2nd Opposite Party

3. The Customer Care Officer, M/s.General Motors India (Pvt.)Limited, Plot No:15, Echelon Industrial Area, Sector 32, Gurgaon, Hariyana – Pincode: 122 001. 3rd Opposite Party

4. The Managing Director, M/s ARAS Appliances Private Limited, 35/1, Samayanallur Road, Vilankudi, Madurai – 625 018. 4th Opposite Party Counsel for Complainant : Mr.S.Viswanathan, Advocate.

Counsel for Opposite Parties-1to3 : Mr.V.Shankar, Advocate.

Counsel for Opposite Party-4 : Mr.M.Sridharan, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 01.08.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for suffering mental agony and expenditure towards medical treatment and also to direct the opposite parties to replace the damaged car and cost of the proceedings.

2. The complainant's case :

The complainant is a leading business man and he purchased Cheverolet Captiva Car from the fourth opposite party, who is the authorized dealer of the company. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are the manufacturers of Cheverolet Captiva Car. The complainant purchased the car as per document number one and the sale price is Rs.24,64,960/- he purchased the car because it was assured by the opposite party that the car was having better safety measures and equipments. Under the strong impression that the car was very safety to travel the complainant purchased the vehicle. While so, on 19.01.2004 while travelling to Madurai near Thuvarankuruchi the car met with an accident. At the time of accident the complainant drove the vehicle and in the front his wife was seating with their children. Other family members seated on the back seats. All the passengers fashioned their seat belts. The vehicle was driven by the complainant at 85 to 95 Kms speed. A lorry was going before the vehicle, suddenly turned left. To avoid collision the complainant applied brakes and turned it’s to right. However, the vehicle hit on the back side of the lorry, the front side of the vehicle was completely damaged. Inspite of such collision the airbags were not inflated and saved the passengers from getting injuries. Since, the airbags system not worked properly all the passengers including the complainant sustained heavy fractures and grievous injuries. They spend huge amount towards medical expenses since the vehicle was having a defect in not inflating airbags. The complainant sustained injuries and mental agony. The damaged vehicle cost Rs.28,00,000/- for repairing which is more than the cost of the vehicle. Hence the complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for suffering mental agony and expenditure towards medical treatment and also to direct the opposite parties to replace the damaged car and cost of the proceedings.

3. The Written version: The opposite parties filed their written version stating that the complainant purchased the vehicle as stated in the complain