IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 07.07.2021 Date of hearing: 25.07.2022 Date of Decision: 06.10.2022 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 42/2021 IN THE MATTER OF HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, C-11 & 11-A, URBAN ESTATE – II, CITY CENTRE, SECTOR – 29, GURUGRAM, HARYANA.

(Through: Ms. Heena Kochar, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. MUKESH AGGARWAL, 7550, PYARE LAL BHAWAN, RAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110055.

(Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, Advocate)

…For Respondent no. 1

2. RISHAB MOTORS PVT. LTD., B – 225, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE – I, NEW DELHI - 110020 ALSO AT:

L - 19, GREEN PARK MAIN, NEW DELHI – 110016.

3. HANS HYUNDAI MOTI NAGAR, SHIVAJI MARG, NEW DELHI (Through: Mr. Prakash, Advocate)

…For Respondent no. 3 CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: None for the Parties.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:

“By way of this complaint, the Complainant has alleged that the airbags in the car Hyundai Verna VTVT SX (0)] bearing no. DL-11C-0266 did not deploy despite the fact that said car met with severe accident. As the airbags are safety equipment in the car, which did not deploy during accident, the Complainant has sought compensation from the OPs herein on account of poor equipment on the car in the case in hand from the manufacturer is the car namely M/s Hyundai Motors India Limited (OP-1 herein), OP-2 (Rishabh Motors Pvt. Ltd.) from where the said vehicle was purchased and OP-3 (Hans Hyundai) where the car was sent for repair after the accident.

At the onset it is noted that the said car was purchased by and is registered in the name of one M/s. Geeta Marble Company but the said car was being used for the personal use of the Director of the company namely Mr. Mukesh Aggarwal. It has been averred in the complaint that the said car was being used for personal use of the said Director. This fact has not been challenged by the OPs in the reply or in any of the filings or even during argument. Hence, despite the fact that the car in question was purchased by the Company but is being used by the Director of the Company who is the Complainant herein, in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble NCDRC in the matter of Crompton Greves Ltd vs Daimler Charysler India Pvt. Ltd, [IV- (2016) CPJ 469 (NC)] by which Hon'ble NCDRC held that the goods and service purchased for personal use of the Directors of the Company are covered under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence, Company as Well as the Complainant herein- Who is user of the car as the Director of the Company, both is consumer within the meaning of section

2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

On 26.10.2011 the said car was purchased and the car met with an accident on 15.01.2016 when the Complainant herein was travelling with one of his guest in the car. During the accident, the said car was hit by one DTC Bus from the left side and the passengers of the car received several injuries. Although life of the passengers in the car were not lost but the impact was such that the Complainant, who was driving the car and also his friend, who was sitting in the front left seat, were totally unseated and they crashed into the steering wheel/dashboard of the car with extreme force. The car hit with such an impact that the B Pillar was badly damaged but the safety airbags did not deploy. It is the case of the Complainant that the said car was sold with the promise that the car is very safe for the passenger as the car is equipped with safety airbags which will deploy in the event of any accident. After the accident, the said car was sent to the workshop/godown of Op-3 where the car was repaired. For non-deployment of safety airbags, Complainant has demanded compensation from the OPs through the E-mail and letters sent to the OPs. However, OPs have refused to pay any compensati