State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hyundai Motors India Ltd. vs Mukesh Aggarwal & Ors. on 13 October, 2022
FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022
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
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 18
FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022
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 DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022 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 compensation as according to them there was no major impact on "B" pillar, where the side sensor to give command to deploy the airbags, was located. The Complainant has also sent them legal notices which were not replied by the OPs. Hence, the Complainant has filed this complaint, praying for, interalia, following prayers:
"a. Directing the opposite parties to replace the aforesaid car immediately with a new one with perfect airbags or in alternative, refund the entire consideration amount of Rs. 8,99,993/- [Rupees Eight Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Nice DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022 Hundred Ninety Three Only] together with interest @ 24% per annum from 26.10.2011 till realization.
b. Direct the opposite party no. 3 to refund the illegally extracted sum of Rs, 15,000/- [Rupees Fifteen Thousand] from the Complainant together with interest @24% per annum from date of payment till realization.
c. Compensation/ damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) in favour of the Complainant and against the opposite parties, for the inconvenience, harassment and mental agony and pain suffered by the Complainant because of the unwarranted, arbitrary and whimsical act and conduct of the opposite parties.
d. Interest on the compensation @ 24% per annum till realization of the compensation.
e. The cost of the present proceedings in favour of the Complainant and against the opposite parties, and f. Such other/further order (s) as this Hon'ble Forum may dèem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Complainant."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 24.02.2020, whereby it held as under:
"In the case in hand, it has been argued that the impact of the accident was not enough for the sensor to send the command for deployment of the safety airbags.
We have also sent the car in question for technical expert opinion to Automobile Engineering Department, G.B Pant Institute of Technology (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi), Okhla, New Delhi 110020 for expert technical opinion. We have received the report of technical expert along with the photographs of the car in the sealed cover. The said report was also handed over DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022 to the parties for fling their respective objections and OP-3 filed its objections.
The main argument of the OP-3, in the initial reply of OP-3, sent to the Complainant in previous series of correspondences, as well as in the reply of the OP-3 filed before this Forum, is that the Impact of the accident on the "B"
pillar of the car was not serious in nature and the impact on the sensor located at "B" pillar was not sufficient enough for transmission of command for deployment safety airbags. However, the expert technical report did not agree with this argument. The Technical Expert in his report has observed that the impact on that vehicle during the accident was serious in nature and condition of the vehicle indicates that the impact was "more than 15 tonnes object momentary (3 sec) hit @ approximately perpendicular to longitudinal axis of the moving vehicle having weigh approximately 1.2 ton and ran away, produced serious impact which deformed "B"-Pillar post at different location, crashed and tear off, front & Rear door of vehicle and that impact more than sufficient to operate side impact sensor module".
The technical report opinion also has thus concluded that the safety airbags should have been deployed with this type of serious impact. The report of the technical expert is reproduction for the benefit.
"I hereby directed to submit my inspection report/ technical opinion in reference to subject cited above. As required by Honourable consumer court, the Technical examination was conducted at Hyundai Verna VTVT SX~: 1.6 Registration No. DL11C0266, on Dated 09.04.2019.
The following technical observations/ opinion were made:
1. The inspection was done at the vehicle registration no.
DL11C0266 after 45095 km run.
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022
2. During inspection it was observed, serious damage occurs on left side (Passenger side) on Bi Pillar post, front & Rear doors of vehicle.
3. During inspection it is observed that both doors crushed, seating fixtures compressed and none of air bags were opened in accidental vehicle registration no. DL11C0266.
4. The impact on left B-Pillar post (Central column) Is of serious in nature, The bottom, middle, side and top of Bi- Pillar depressed due to severity of collision occurred approximately perpendicular to vehicle longitudinal axis. Whereas the side impact sensor is mounted on Bi-Pillar post which could not operate the side air bags and curtain air bags though heavy impact produced during collision normal to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
5. The impact on LH side of vehicle is of serious in nature, The vehicle condition shows that more than 15 ton object momentary (3 Sec) hit @ 40km/hr approximately perpendicular to longitudinal axis of the moving vehicle having weigh approximately 1.2 ton and ran away, produced serious impact which deformed Bi-Pillar post at different location, crashed and tear off, front & Rear door of vehicle and that impact more than sufficient to operate side impact sensor module.
6. Generally impact sensor needs to operate by less than on forth of impact produced during side collision as stated in point number 5. But in above case it has been observed that neither side air bag nor side curtain bag were opened due to high impact this might be happened due to defective SRS control module or air bags module or impact sensors.
7. The location of installed side impact sensors and its numbers on above said type of vehicle are required to be revised or redesigned.
DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022
Considering above stated observations on said vehicle, the impact locations, direction of impact, weight and speed of both the vehicle, the impact is of serious in nature. I would like to convey my technical opinion strengthens with technical knowledge the side and curtain air bag should have been opened with this type of serious impact.
Sd/-
MANOJ KUMAR MISHRA Gazetted Group-A Sr. Lecturer, I/C Automobile Engg.
Directorate of Trg. & Tech. Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi"
The Technical Expert has also annexed some of the photographs of the inspected vehicle. We have perused the photograph sent with the technical expert report. These photographs form part of this order at the end as Appendix. These photographs also suggest that the impact was very serious to the effect that there is a shift in the seat position and there was jamming of the centre console between the driver's seat and the other front seat. We have also observed inward deformation of "B" Pillar as a result the impact. Impact causing such severe impact cannot be said to be non-serious in nature and even the visuals suggests that such impact was enough for the deployment of the Air Bags.
Now, we have to examine that whether non-deployment of safety airbags entitle the Complainant to seek compensation from the OPs. In this context, OP-3 has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Toyota Kirlosker Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs Tirath Singh Oberoi [I (2017) CPJ 202 (NC)]. In the Toyota case, Hon'ble Commission found that it was evident from the photographs that the Truck collided with the front right side of the said vehicle and hence, the collision being angular, it did not cause the activation of crash DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022 sensor and consequent inflation of the inflammatory unit with the Air bag. It was also noted that the Airbags in Toyota Car would deploy only in case of frontal collusion only which has also been explained in the booklet of the car. Hon'ble National Commission also observed that the report of the Surveyor cannot be considered as "Technical Expert Opinion", hence Hon'ble National Commission concluded that in absence of any technical expert opinion and based on the Complainant could not prove manufacturing defect in the car in question. As a result, Hon'ble National Commission allowed the revision petition and dismissed the Complaint.
However, in the case before us, the facts are completely different. The impact of the accident in the case in hand was not angular. The Technical Expert has given the opinion that the impact was "perpendicular to longitudinal axis of the moving vehicle". Further, the report of the Technical Expert has been obtained in the matter and the said report cannot simply be ruled out. In the case before Hon'ble National Commission, the report of the surveyor was not relied as the surveyor was not considered as technical expert. In the case before us, the technical expert opinion was obtained in compliance of our orders, which is at much higher footing in comparison of the opinion/ report of the Surveyor. Hence, on the facts of the case, the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Toyota case (supra) cannot be applied in the case in hand.
On the other hand, in the matter of Hyundai Motors India Ltd vs Leela Shu [Revision Petition No. 1014 of 2016, decided on 25/04/2016], Hon'ble National Commission in a similar case, has did not agree with the argument of the Manufacturer of the car that in non-severe collusion, the safety airbags would not deploy. Hon'ble National Commission has rejected the argument of Hyundai and suggested that Hyundai should stop selling vehicles with airbags unless or until they as cent percent without any flaw of any kind. Hon'ble National Commission, hence, dismissed the revision petition and imposed additional cost upon the Car Manufacturing Company.
DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022
In the matter of CG Power & industrial Solutions Limited vs Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd [CC. No. 51/ 2006 decided on 11/09/2017], Hon'ble National Commission has relied on the technical expert opinion and has concluded that for non- deployment of safety airbags in case of frontal impact, compensation to the Complainant can be awarded.
In the case in hand, based on the report of technical expert, photographs of the accident and averments of the parties, we are of the opinion that the argument of the OPs that the impact was non-serious in nature and the sensor, did not receive the impact severe enough (at threshold limit) to send the command for deployment of safety airbags, is incorrect and unacceptable. The Photographs and Technical Expert Opinion report suggest that the impact was severe enough to deform the "B" Piller and to cause shifting of the frontal seat, and was also perpendicular to longitudinal axis of the moving vehicle. In such a condition, the sensor must send the command for deployment of safety airbags. Non-deployment of safety airbags is because of defective SRS control manual or air bags module or impact sensors. Hence, we allow the complaint and pass following directions:
1. Op-1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of non-deployment of safety airbags in the car within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
2. Op-1 is also directed to repair the car in question free of cost and hand over the repaired car to the Complainant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In case, the car is not repaired by the OP-1 during the said period, or OP-1 decided not to repair the car, Op-1 shall be liable to pay an additional sum of Rs.
5,00,000/- to the Complainant, in lieu of the handing over repaired car to the Complainant within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022
3. OP-1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for causing inconvenience, mental harassment and agony on account of non-deployment of safety airbags in the Car, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
4. OP-3 is directed to refund parking charges so charged from Complainant, if any within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and recover the same from OP 1. if so advised. 5. In case, the OPs do not comply with the order of this Forum, they she liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the entire sum payable to the Complainant after the expiry of the prescribed period."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party No. 1 has preferred the present appeal inter- alia, contending that the District Commission has erred in proceeding the ex-parte order against the Appellant, despite knowing the fact that the publication of summons was done through the newspaper which is not widely circulated in Delhi. The counsel for the Appellant further contended that the Respondent No. 1 does not fall under the category of the 'Consumer' as the said car was being used by the Respondent No. 1 for commercial purpose as it was purchased and registered under the name of M/s Geeta Marble Company. The Counsel further contended that the District Commission has failed to consider the SRS Investigation report which was made after the said accident. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment of the District Commission.
4. The Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, through its written submissions, denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment as the entire material DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022 available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said judgment.
5. We have perused the material available on record.
6. The main three questions for consideration before us are:
i. Whether the Appellant was erroneously proceeded ex-parte by the District Commission vide its order dated 13.01.2020. ii. Whether the Respondent no.1 falls under the category of 'Consumer' in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
iii. Whether the said car suffered from any manufacturing defect due to non-deployment of the air bags.
7. To adjudicate the first issue, we perused the District Commission Record filed by the Appellant and noted that the Appellant (Opposite Party no. 1) had already vacated the premises, mentioned by the Respondent no. 1 (Complainant) in the memo of parties, therefore, notice of the complaint was never served upon it. Thereafter, upon the application of the Respondent no. 1, he was permitted to serve the notice upon Appellant and Respondent no. 2 by way of publication in the newspaper and the same was duly published in 'Rashtriya Sahara' (NCR) newspaper on 09.01.2020. However, despite service by way of publication, the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 failed to appear before the District Commission on the next date of hearing. As a result, the District Commission, vide its order dated 13.01.2020, proceed ex-parte orders against Appellant and Respondent no.2.
8. Further, on perusal of record, we find that the Appellant contended that they have already vacated the premises where the notice of the complaint was served. However, the Appellant failed to show any public notice or any cogent evidence on record to prove that the notice DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022 of shifting was published in any public domain. Therefore, in our opinion and taking into account the facts of the case, the District Commission was right in allowing the Respondent no. 1 to serve the notice by way of publication in newspaper. Moreover, it is the duty of the Appellant to take extra caution regarding the public notices issued in the Newspaper.
9. As far as the issue regarding circulation of newspaper is concerned, it is well established that it is at discretion of the court to allow publication through a particular newspaper. Also, it is evident that the District Commission accredited the publication that was carried out by the Respondent no.1 through "Rastriya Sahara" newspaper. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant holds no merits and is answered in negative.
10. To deal with the second issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
"Section 2(1)(d) Consumer" means any person who- i. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or ii. hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly DISMISSED PAGE 12 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022 promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose. Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment."
11. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Crompton Greaves Limited and Ors. vs. Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited and Ors. reported in IV (2016) CPJ 469 (NC), wherein the National Commission held as under:-
"4. Going by the dictionary meaning, a car or for that matter any goods obtained and the services hired or availed by a company can be said to have been obtained or hired or availed for a commercial purpose, only if the said goods or services are intrinsically connected with, or related to the business or commerce in which the company is engaged. The acquisition of the goods or the hiring or availing of services, in order to bring the transaction within the purview of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, should be aimed at generating profits for the company or should otherwise be connected or interwoven with the business activities of the company. The purpose behind such acquisition should be to promote, advance or augment the business activities of the company, by the use of such goods or services. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works (supra), it is not the value of the goods but the purpose for which the goods are brought or put to use, which is relevant to decide whether the goods were obtained for a commercial purpose or not. The same would be the position, where services are hired or availed by a company. If the business activities of a company cannot be conveniently undertaken without the goods DISMISSED PAGE 13 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022 purchased or the services hired or availed by a company, such purchase or hiring/availing as the case may be, would be for a commercial purpose, because the objective behind such purchase of goods or hiring or availing of the services would be to enable the company to earn profits by undertaking and advancing its business activities.
5. If a car or other goods are purchased or the services are hired or availed by a company for the personal use of its directors or employees, the purpose behind such acquisition is not to earn profits or to advance the business activities of the company. The purpose is to make certain facilities and amenities available to the directors and employees of the company as a part of the incentive offered to them by the company, as a reward or remuneration for the work which they are expected to perform for the company. It is not as if a company cannot run its business without providing such facilities and amenities to its directors and employees. It is not necessary for the business of the company, to provide such facilities and amenities to its directors and employees.
Providing such facilities and amenities only motivates them to perform their work in an efficient and congenial environment, besides serving as an incentive aimed at eliciting better performance. The company does not earn profit merely by making a car or certain other goods or services available to its directors and employees. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that such goods are purchased or the services are hired or availed by the company for a commercial purpose."
12. Relying on the above settled law, we hold that the Respondent no. 1 is a 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as said car was purchased for their personal use and the purpose behind such purchase was not to earn profits or to advance the business activities of the Respondent no.1. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is answered in negative.
DISMISSED PAGE 14 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022
13. In order to resolve the last issue, it is essential to refer to "Safety Features of Your Vehicle" provided at "Page 5/36 & 5/37" in the "User Manual" which is annexed at Page 60 and 61 of the present Appeal, says as follows:
"Although the front air bags (driver's and front passenger's air bags) are designed to inflate only in frontal collisions, they also may inflate in other types of collisions if the front impact sensors detect a sufficient impact. Side impact and curtain air bags are designed to inflate only in side impact collisions, but they may inflate in other collisions if the side impact sensors detect a sufficient impact.
Air bag non-inflation conditions • In certain low-speed collisions the air bags may not deploy. The air bags are designed not to deploy in such cases because they may not provide benefits beyond the protection of the seat belts in such collisions. • Frontal air bags are not designed to inflate in rear collisions, because occupants are moved backward by the force of the impact. In this case, inflated air bags would not be able to provide any additional benefit. • Front air bags may not inflate in side impact collisions, because occupants move to the direction of the collision, and thus in side impacts, frontal air bag deployment would not provide additional occupant protection. However, side impact and curtain air bags may inflate depending on the intensity, vehicle speed and angles of impact.
DISMISSED PAGE 15 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022
• In an angled collision, the force of impact may direct the occupants in a direction where the air bags would not be able to provide any additional benefit, and thus the sensors may not deploy any air bags."
14. Perusal of the above situations mentioned in the 'User Manual', concluded that curtain air bags are intended to inflate if the vehicle suffered a side collision. Further, it is also stated that in event of side collision, frontal air bags are not required to inflate because they do not provide any additional occupant protection to the pilot.
15. It is also worth noting that the inspection report of the Expert Technician, which was submitted before the District Commission, clarifies that the car in question was hit from the left side by a moving Bus. As a result, there is no doubt that no frontal collision has been occurred in the present case. However, according to the 'User Manual' even though the Moving Bus collided with the car in question from the left side, the curtain air bags should have been inflated in this instant case subjected to the intensity of the collision.
16. Furthermore, to check the intensity of the collision upon which the deployment of the air bags depends, the report of the Expert Technician filed before District Commission itself clears that the serious damage has been occurred on the left side of the car especially to Bi Pillar post (where the curtain air bags sensors was fitted), front and rear doors of the vehicle. It is also mentioned that the impact was so serious that the Bi pillar of the car was depressed from all the sides i.e. from top, middle and bottom and seating fixtures of the car in question was also compressed.
17. In addition, the SRS investigation report, filed by the Appellant before this Commission stated that the major impact has been seen on the left DISMISSED PAGE 16 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022 side of the car and after collision, the said car was shifted towards bus, resulting in the sequential deformation of the left side. Further, no evaluation regarding the intensity of the collision has been provided in the SRS investigation report. As a result, bare perusal of the SRS investigation report reveals that all the aspects of said incident was not covered by the concerned.
18. We would further like to add here that when a consumer buys a vehicle equipped with airbags, he or she expects that the airbags would automatically deploy in the event of collision from any side of the vehicle. Furthermore, both the Expert report and the SRS investigation report, highlight the fact that the car in question sustained a significant damage on its left side and deployment of the airbags might have prevented injuries to the passengers, especially those in the front seat, of the aforementioned car.
19. Moreover, a consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics calculating the impact of a collision on the theories based on velocity and force. In fact, the air bags are meant to protect the driver and the passengers from severe injuries in a frontal or side collision. They are further designed to provide further protection in addition to the primary safety provided by seat belts. In the instant case, the non- functioning of the air bags is a total failure of engineering which could be more fatal, hence it can easily be said that the car in question is suffered from major defects, which could be discovered only at the time of such accident as has happened in the instant case.
20. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reason to reverse the findings of the District Commission. In these circumstances, we uphold the judgment dated 20.02.2020 passed by DISMISSED PAGE 17 OF 18 FA NO./42/2021 HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VS MR. MUKESH AGGARWAL D.O.D.: 06.10.2022 the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -VII, South West District, New-Delhi 110077.
21. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
22. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
23. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
06.10.2022 DISMISSED PAGE 18 OF 18