Consumer Forums must obtain expert opinion from an appropriate laboratory under Section 13(1)(c) before establishing manufacturing defects and awarding damages.

ORDER

PER MR SUBHASH CHANRA

1. This appeal under Section 19 with Section 21(a)(ii) read with of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) challenges the order dated 17.06.2016 of the State Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (in short, the ‘State Commission’) in Complaint Case No. CC/13/329 partly allowing the appeal and directing the appellant herein to pay compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- within two months to the respondent failing which to pay the same with interest @ 9% pa till realization along with costs of Rs 25,000/-. Appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint with costs and to pass such order(s) as deemed fit and proper.

2. This order will also dispose of FA No. 1074 of 2016 filed by the Respondent herein against the Appellants which also emanates from the same order. As the facts of the case are similar, FA 1054 of 2016 is taken as the lead case.

3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent purchased a Honda Civic 1.8 S MT car from the appellant through Kothari Auto Link Pvt. Ltd. for Rs 13,20,003/- from Crystal Honda, Pune Maharashtra. The car met with an accident on 01.03.2013 on the Western Express Highway and the front portion of the car was damaged and the respondent received injuries to his left arm and shoulder that required medical treatment on which he spent Rs 40,000/-. The respondent approached the State Commission through a Consumer Complaint seeking various compensations which was decided on contest. According to the respondent the safety air bags in the car failed to deploy despite the severe impact on the front portion of the car which was attributed to a manufacturing defect of the car. The appellant informed the respondent after inspection of the car that the external impact in the upper front had caused the car to gradually decelerate and the required conditions were not met for the sensors to deploy the airbags, which are designed to deploy only under certain specific conditions as a safety mechanism. It was stated that the respondent had not worn the seat belt as prescribed which was also a reason for the airbags not opening at the time of the accident. The car was repaired to the satisfaction of the respondent and therefore there was no case for damages. The State Commission, after hearing the submissions of both parties, arrived at the conclusion that there was no expert opinion on record to support the appellant’s submission that use of the seat belt was a necessary condition for the airbags to open. Its finding was that when the car had met with an accident the impact of which was so forceful, the airbags should have opened as a safety feature for which the respondent had paid while purchasing the car. It was noted that as per newspaper reports, Honda Cars had recalled approximately 58,000 cars due to defects in airbags. It was held that while the insurance claim of Rs 1,60,000/- had been received from the insurer, the respondent’s claim of Rs 43,50,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs 25,000/- was not justified. Consequently, compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- was considered fair and just along with litigation costs of Rs 25,000/- to be paid within two months failing which with interest @ 9% p.a. till realization. This order is impugned before us.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and given careful consideration to their submissions and the material on record.

5. Appellant’s contentions are that the complaint was bad for