Delhi District Court
Suresh Kumar vs Hundai Motor India Ltd. Ans on 20 March, 2025
CS SCJ 83805/16
SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, CIVIL
JUDGE-01 (SOUTH) SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No :- 83805/16
CNR No :- DLST03-000786-2015
SH. SURESH KUMAR
S/o Sh. Sube Singh
R/o B-2, T/F Chandra Vihar,
Palam Ext. Part-1, Sec.-07, Dwarka
New Delhi-110045 ......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.
Through its M.D. & CEO,
Head Office at:-
2nd, 5th, 6th Floor Corporate One,
Baani Building, Plot No. 5,
Commercial Centre,
Jasola Vihar, Delhi-110025 ......DEFENDANT NO. 1
2. THE CONCEPT CARS INDIA PVT. LTD.
(Ex-parte vide order dated 12.08.2015)
A-5, Green Park,
New Delhi-110016 ......DEFENDANT NO. 2
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
Page no. 1 of 28 ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.03.20
17:03:55 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 83805/16
SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
Date of Institution : 30.03.2015
Date of Decision : 20.03.2025
Date of framing of issues : 04.04.2016
Date of final arguments : 15.01.2025
Decision : DISMISSED
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES
FOR A SUM OF RS. 2,42,093/-
JUDGMENT:-
1. This is a civil suit for mandatory injunction and damages for a sum of Rs. 2,42,093 filed by the plaintiff. AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT:-
2. Succinctly, the case of plaintiff is that he had purchased a Hyundai Verna CRDI Sx 1.6 Pure White vehicle from Defendant No. 2, an authorized dealer of Defendant No. 1 (the manufacturer), on 07.09.2014. The vehicle was delivered with a retail invoice dated 06.09.2014. At the time of purchase, Defendant No. 2 provided the plaintiff with a registration letter, assuring that the CNG endorsement and RC Smart would be completed within the specified time. The vehicle was insured under policy no. 1302742311002467. Defendant No. 2 also issued a satisfaction letter confirming that the vehicle was in good condition and met quality and safety standards, including the proper functioning of airbags in the event of an accident.
3. On 31st December 2014, at approximately 9:00 p.m., while the plaintiff was driving the vehicle with his son namely Digitally signed Page no. 2 of 28 by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.03.20 17:04:01 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
Sachin Dabas (front passenger seat), and one Vivek (rear seat), a scooter suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle. To avoid a collision, the plaintiff turned the vehicle to the left and applied the brakes. Despite these efforts, the vehicle collided with a tree.
4. As a result of the crash, the plaintiff's son, Sachin Dabas, sustained an injury to his lower lip, requiring six stitches, and was hospitalized at Sitaram Bhartiya Hospital, New Delhi. The plaintiff claims that the airbags in the vehicle failed to deploy during the collision, despite the assurance from Defendant No. 2 that the airbags would provide safety in the event of an accident. The failure of Airbags system to perform as promised resulted in the injury to the plaintiff's son.
5. The plaintiff contends that both defendants are jointly and severally liable for replacing the defective vehicle and for compensating the damages. A legal notice was issued to the defendants on 07.01.2015, demanding the replacement of the defective vehicle and compensation for damages. Having left with no other option, present suit has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
(a) Pass a decree along with cost directing the defendants to pay Rs. 2 lacs against the damages, medical expenses, mental harassment and agony due to delivering the defective vehicle Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: Page no. 3 of 28 SHARMA 2025.03.20 17:04:07 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
along with interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 29.04.2013 till its realization? OPP
(b) Pass a decree directing the defendants to pay Rs. 9,476/- for registration charges, Rs. 28,104/- of insurance charges and Rs. 4500/- of MCD taxes to the plaintiff;
(c) Pass a decree directing the defendants to replace the vehicle immediately; and
(d) Any other relief.
AVERMENTS OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO. 1:-
6. Defendant No. 1 raises preliminary objections, asserting that the plaintiff lacks locus standi to seek compensation on behalf of his son, which is legally impermissible. Additionally, the defendant contends that the suit should be dismissed due to the non-joinder of necessary parties. The vehicle involved in the accident was insured by Reliance General Insurance Company, covering third-party liabilities, including personal injuries. The plaintiff has deliberately failed to include the insurance company as a necessary party, which is essential for proper adjudication. Moreover, the plaintiff has not disclosed whether an insurance claim was made. It is also stated that the suit has been incorrectly valued and the appropriate court fees have not been paid.
Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Page no. 4 of 28 SHARMA Date: 2025.03.20 17:04:18 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16
SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
7. Defendant No. 1 states that the plaintiff is solely responsible for the loss due to negligence in driving the vehicle. The police complaint (DD No. 68B, dated 31.12.2014) supports this, and the plaintiff himself requested the police that no action be taken regarding the accident, which invoking the rule of estoppel against the plaintiff. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff's son sustained an injury to his lower lip. Defendant No. 1 claims this injury could only occur if the occupant was not wearing a seat belt. The sudden braking would have caused the plaintiff's son to bend forward, causing his lower lip to strike the dashboard. It is emphasized that Sachin Dabas was negligent by not wearing his seat belt, contributing to his injury. The defendant further asserts that the plaintiff's complaint lacks material particulars, as details regarding damages have not been specified.
8. Defendant No. 1 attaches the relevant portion of the vehicle's owner's manual, explaining the SRS airbag system's operation. The manual specifies that the airbag deploys only under specific conditions such as a frontal collision of sufficient severity, Impact speed above a certain threshold, Impact angle less than 30 degrees from the forward longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
9. Defendant no. 1 further states that the airbag does not deploy during rear, side, or rollover impacts, nor in low-speed collisions. Moreover, for the airbag to activate, the occupant must be Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Page no. 5 of 28 2025.03.20
17:04:24
+0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 83805/16
SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
wearing a seat belt. If the plaintiff's son was wearing a seat belt, then the injury could have been avoided. In low-speed collisions, where the impact is localized (such as hitting a tree), the sensors may not detect sufficient force to deploy the airbag. The vehicle was inspected after the accident, and the SRS control module showed no evidence of a frontal collision or airbag deployment. The collision with the tree caused no damage to the sensor-mounted area, and the SRS control module was found to be in proper working condition. Defendant No. 1 denies any defect in the vehicle that would have caused the airbags to fail. Defendant No. 1 respectfully requests that the plaintiff's suit be dismissed in its entirety. All the other averments of the plaintiff have been denied and it is prayed that present suit is liable to be dismissed.
10. It is pertinent to note that Defendant No. 2 was duly served on 24.04.2015. However, Defendant No. 2 failed to file a written statement, did not appear before the court, and did not contest the suit. Consequently, Defendant No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte by the order dated 12.08.2015, passed by the learned predecessor court.
REPLICATION: -
11. Replication to written statement of defendant no 1 was filed wherein the stand taken by the plaintiff in his suit was re- affirmed and all the averments raised by defendant no 1 was denied.
Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Page no. 6 of 28 Date: SHARMA 2025.03.20 17:04:31 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16
SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
ISSUES:-
12. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 04.04.2016:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as prayed for? If yes, whether the plaintiff is also entitled to interest thereupon? If yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of registration charges, insurances charges and MCD taxes as prayed for? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction of replacing the vehicle as prayed for? OPP
(iv) Whether the present suit is not maintainable for want of cause of action? OPD1
(v) Whether the suit has not been valued properly and proper court fees has not been affixed? OPD1
(vi) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPD1
(vii) Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE:-
13. To prove his case, plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Page no. 7 of 28 SHARMA Date:
2025.03.20 17:04:38 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
reiterating the contents of the plaint in toto. He placed reliance upon the following documents:
(i) Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) i.e. copy of driving license;
(ii) Mark A i.e. Retail invoice dated 26.04.2011;
(iii) Mark B i.e. Satisfaction letter dated 07.09.2014;
(iv) Mark C i.e. Delivery receipt and gate pass dated 07.09.2014;
(v) Mark D i.e. Copy of insurance policy dated 06.09.2014;
(vi) Mark E i.e. Police complaint dated 31.12.2014;
(vii) Mark F i.e. Office copy of the legal notice dated 07.01.2015;
(viii) Ex. PW1/2 (colly) i.e. Postal receipts;
(ix) Mark G i.e. Copy of the surveyor report dated 31.12.2014;
(x) Ex. PW1/3 (colly) (OSR) i.e. Manual book of the vehicle (16 pages);
(xi) Mark H i.e. Photograph of son of the plaintiff; and
(xii) Mark I (colly) i.e. medical documents (3 pages).
14. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1. During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident and acknowledged that no FIR was filed. However, he stated that he called the police using the emergency number (100), and his statement was recorded. He confirmed that he received the vehicle's manual at the time of purchase, which he still possesses, but he was unaware of the specific conditions under which the airbags deploy.
Digitally signed by ANUBHAVANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Page no. 8 of 28 2025.03.20
17:04:46
+0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 83805/16
SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
He denied allegations that he avoided a medical examination due to alcohol consumption.
15. He stated that he took his son to the hospital before the police arrived and that he and the other passenger suffered minor injuries but did not seek medical examination. He denied that his son failed to wear a seat belt, which allegedly caused his injury. He mentioned that the car was repaired at Hyundai's authorized workshop, M/s Rama Motors in Vasant Kunj, Delhi, for approximately 8-10 months due to major damage. He could not recall whether the radiator was damaged and denied deliberately withholding the repair bill.
16. He also stated that he was unaware of the airbag deployment conditions and insisted that only a surveyor could confirm whether the airbags should have deployed. He denied that the airbags failed to deploy due to insufficient impact.
17. He admitted that after lodging the police complaint, he informed the police that he did not wish to pursue the matter further. He estimated the vehicle's speed at around 50 km/h before applying the brakes. He confirmed the vehicle was insured on the accident date and denied that he avoided filing an insurance claim to evade extra costs, stating he did not claim due to this ongoing case.
18. Finally, he insisted that the accident impact was significant and denied that the workshop informed him that the Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Page no. 9 of 28 SHARMA Date:
2025.03.20 17:05:04 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
airbags did not deploy due to insufficient sensor impact. The cross- examination of PW1 concluded on 30.01.2019.
19. Sh. Sachin Dabas was examined as PW2 in the present case who tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex. PW2/A deposing that he was wearing seat belt at the time of accident and he got injured due to non-opening of air bags.
20. PW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1. During cross-examination by the learned counsel for Defendant No. 1, he stated that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. He asserted that neither the driver nor the passenger sustained any injuries. He denied that he was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the incident. He stated that the car was traveling at a speed of 50-60 km/h when the accident occurred. According to him, the accident happened after the driver took a left turn and applied the brakes when the collision became imminent. He denied that the vehicle's speed was further reduced before colliding with the tree, explaining that he could not specify how much the speed decreased. He mentioned that a police officer took him to the hospital, which was approximately 300-500 meters from the accident site. He also stated that no police complaint was lodged regarding the incident.
21. He confirmed awareness of the vehicle's airbag but stated that he was unaware of the airbag's sensor system at the time Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: Page no. 10 of 28 SHARMA 2025.03.20 17:05:14 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
of the accident. He admitted that he had never driven the vehicle before the day of the accident and only learned about the airbag sensor after discussing it with Defendant No. 1 following the accident. He denied refusing to undergo a Medical Legal Case (MLC) examination at a government hospital. He stated that he did not know who called the police and that police officials visited him at the hospital. He also could not recall whether the police inquired about filing a complaint or advised him to get an MLC.
22. He explained that his father stayed with him from the time of the accident until he was admitted to the hospital. He confirmed that he had not filed any insurance claim related to the incident. He stated that bystanders and passengers took him to the hospital and that he saw the damaged vehicle the following morning. He mentioned that he is now aware of airbag functionality and understands under what conditions airbags deploy.
23. He added that after the accident, he met with an engineer who explained that airbags are designed to deploy when triggered for occupant safety. He further stated that airbags activate when they are struck above the general impact. The cross- examination of PW2 concluded on 28.09.2021.
24. Further, Sh. Tasnim-uddin-siddiqui was a summoned witness was examined as PW3. He states that he is a Govt. approved surveyor and loss assessors and working for more than 40 years Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: Page no. 11 of 28 SHARMA 2025.03.20 17:05:21 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
independently in this field. He has proved the original of mechanical inspection report dated 02.01.2015 of the accidental vehicle number DL-12-CE-9476 White Colour make Hyundai Verna Car which is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/8 (OSR).
25. PW3 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1. During cross-examination by the learned counsel for Defendant No. 1, he stated that, till date, neither in India nor internationally, is there any scientific instrument or method available to precisely assess the damage sustained by a vehicle in an accident. He explained that, based on his vast experience in the field, he assessed the vehicle's damage and prepared his inspection report accordingly.
26. He voluntarily stated that he had personally inspected the accident vehicle at the workshop before preparing his report. He maintained that the case involved a genuine accident and asserted that the airbags failed to deploy due to a manufacturing defect in the airbag assembly's quality. He emphasized that, after thoroughly inspecting the vehicle, he concluded that the accident occurred from the front and that the airbags failed to deploy in time.
27. He denied the allegation that he lacked knowledge regarding airbag deployment, vehicle manufacturing, and overall vehicle assessment after an impact. The cross-examination of PW3 Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Page no. 12 of 28 2025.03.20
17:05:27
+0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 83805/16
SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
concluded on 05.09.2023. Thereafter, by separate statement, the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 02.02.2024. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE:-
28. On the other hand, in support of its case, Sh. Hemant Makkar, AR of defendant no. 1 company was examined as DW-1 and tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex. DW1/A. He has placed reliance upon following documents i.e.
(i) Ex. DW1/1 (OSR) i.e. copy of authorization and board resolution dated 30.05.2023;
(ii) Mark DW1/2 i.e. copy of letter of authorization and board resolution dated 30.06.2014; and
(iii) Ex. DW1/3 (colly) i.e. copy of relevant portion of owner's manual containing safety features and non-inflation conditions of the airbag (running into 5 pages).
29. DW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, he stated that on the date of the alleged incident, 31.12.2014, he was not employed by Defendant No. 1. He admitted having no personal knowledge of the incident and was unaware whether Defendant No. 2 was an authorized dealer of Defendant No.
1. He confirmed that he reviewed the documents submitted by the plaintiff with the plaint and acknowledged that Defendant No. 2 was indeed an authorized dealer of Defendant No. 1 at the time of the Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Page no. 13 of 28 Date:
SHARMA 2025.03.20 17:05:33 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
vehicle purchase. He explained that, as per standard practice, the dealer (Defendant No. 2) places an order with Defendant No. 1, which supplies the vehicle according to the dealer's requirements. The dealer then directly handles sales with potential buyers of Hyundai cars.
30. He further stated that the owner's manual provided by Defendant No. 1 was included with the vehicle at delivery. He noted that vehicles undergo inspection at the factory before being delivered to dealers. He clarified that the company offers a warranty, not a guarantee, as outlined in the owner's manual. The warranty covers repair or replacement of defective parts within the warranty period.
31. He expressed ignorance about the legal notice dated 07.01.2015 or whether the company inspected the vehicle after receiving the notice or following the accident. He stated that the vehicle was inspected by Defendant No. 2's dealership workshop after the accident, which might have extracted information from the vehicle's ECU (Electronic Control Unit) and SRS control module.
32. He emphasized that the primary safety feature is the seat belt, which locks during an accident to prevent the occupant from moving forward. The airbag serves as a secondary safety measure, designed to deploy during severe impact but may cause bruising or burns due to sudden heat and gas release upon Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: Page no. 14 of 28 SHARMA 2025.03.20 17:05:42 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
deployment, especially in direct dashboard impact scenarios. He admitted that Defendant No. 1 did not submit the post-accident inspection report conducted by Defendant No. 2's dealership, and he was unaware when the company received that report. He stated that he had not reviewed or seen the post-accident inspection report and that his affidavit's assertion - "the plaintiff's son was not wearing a seat belt" - was based on information received from Defendant No.
2. He could not specify how the information was communicated.
33. He defended against claims of inconsistency, explaining that Paragraph 9 of his affidavit referred to the conditions for frontal impact, which justifies non-deployment of airbags if the impact is concentrated in one area at low speed. He referred to page 5/36 of the owner's manual, explaining side curtain airbag deployment, while Paragraph 9 addressed frontal impact, detailed on page 5/38 of the manual.
34. He further stated that he could neither confirm nor deny if the airbags deployed during the incident but agreed it was correct that the airbags did not deploy, as the deployment conditions were not met. He denied allegations of ignorance about the case, that the vehicle was defective, or that Defendant No. 1 deliberately withheld any post-accident inspection report.
35. The cross-examination of DW1 concluded on 27.07.2024. Subsequently, by a separate statement from the Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Page no. 15 of 28 SHARMA Date:
2025.03.20 17:05:48 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
authorized representative (AR) of Defendant No. 1, the defense evidence was closed on 27.07.2024, and the matter was listed for final arguments.
36. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 CPC to introduce additional evidence: a copy of the dealership agreement between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2, and a copy of the SRS investigation report. This application was allowed by the court on 10.02.2025, granting Defendant No. 1 an opportunity to present additional evidence.
37. DW1 tendered his additional affidavit of evidence as Ex. DW1/B and has relied upon following documents i.e.
(i) Ex. DW1/4 (OSR) i.e. Dealership agreement dated 20.06.2012 between D1 & D2;
(ii) Ex. DW1/5 i.e. Printout copy of SRS investigation report; and (iii) Ex. DW1/6 i.e. Certificate u/S 65B IEA, 1872.
38. During the additional cross-examination, DW1 stated that the dealership agreement primarily covers the commercial terms and conditions related to business operations between the dealer (Defendant No. 2) and the company (Defendant No. 1). He explained that any defects in the vehicle are addressed in the owner's manual, which specifies that if the company acknowledges a defective part, it will either be repaired or replaced.
Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: Page no. 16 of 28 SHARMA 2025.03.20 17:05:55 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16
SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
39. He denied the claim that the airbags failed to deploy due to a defect in the vehicle. He reiterated that any defects in the vehicle are covered under the owner's manual, which clearly outlines the repair or replacement policy for acknowledged defects. According to him, the airbags did not deploy because the impact did not meet the deployment conditions specified in the owner's manual.
40. DW1 acknowledged that Ex. DW1/5, a report prepared by Defendant No. 2 at their dealership workshop, was received in Defendant No. 1's official records. However, he admitted that Ex. DW1/5 does not bear any stamp, signature, or the name of the person who prepared the report. The document only mentions the dealer's name and code, indicating where the report was prepared. DW1 denied allegations that Ex. DW1/5 is a forged or fabricated document.
41. Additionally, DW1 admitted that Ex. DW1/4 was not prepared in his presence, and he submitted it as it was available in the official record. The additional cross-examination of DW1 concluded on 04.03.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
42. Final arguments advanced by both parties were heard on 15.01.2025. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that defendants are jointly liable for selling defective vehicle. Due to Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: Page no. 17 of 28 SHARMA 2025.03.20 17:06:02 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
non-deployment of air bags, his son suffered injuries. He further argued that this fact has also corroborate by the testimony of PW3. He further mentioned that the SRS report is false or forged document and cannot relied upon and hence, it is prayed that decree be passed in his favour. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. BMW India P. Ltd CA no. 1044/2019.
43. Ld. counsel for defendant has argued that the plaintiff has failed to register the F.I.R. regarding the occurrence. Further, plaintiff has suffered the medical expenses of Rs.4000/- however, he seeks damages of Rs. 2,42,000/- in the present case from the defendants. Plaintiff has also failed to place on record a mechanical report regarding accident. However, defendant filed SRS investigation report on record. As per SRS report, it is confirmed that the condition was not met for the air bag deployment. Hence, no air bag deployed. The air bag system was working proper at the time of accident".
44. He further submitted that insurance has not been claimed by the plaintiff where the plaintiff had chance to mitigate his loss by claiming insurance from the insurance company. Plaintiff has not approached proper forum i.e.; consumer court and he has not filed proper court fees as he seeks recovery of new vehicle in the form of replacement of vehicle in question. Plaintiff failed to prove Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Page no. 18 of 28 Date:
SHARMA 2025.03.20 17:06:10 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
that at the time of accident, plaintiff his son wore seat belts at the time of accident as if plaintiff's son was wearing seatbelt, the dashboard would not have caused lower lip injury. Hence, it is prayed that suit be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 has relied upon following judgments i.e. (i) Murlidhar Chiranjilal Vs. Harishchandra Dwarkadas & Anr. 1961 SCC Online SC 100; (ii) State of H.P. Vs. Jai Lal & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 280; (iii) Dayal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2012) 8 SCC 263; (iv) Vijay Traders Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. (1994) 6 SCC 566; (v) Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala & Anr. (1994) 1 SCC 397, (vi) Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Antonio Paulo Vaz & ANr. (2021) SCC Online SC 125; (vii) Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabotra & Anr. (2006) 4 SCC 644; and (viii) Yaqub Khan Vs. Punjab Kashmir Finance P. Ltd 2013 SCC Online P&H 12735.
45. The file has been carefully and minutely perused and my issue-wise findings with reasons thereof are as under: -
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as prayed for? If yes, whether the plaintiff is also entitled to interest thereon? If yes, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
46. The burden to prove the same is on plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that he was driving the vehicle when the accident Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Page no. 19 of 28 SHARMA Date:
2025.03.20 17:06:22 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
occurred, leading to injuries to his son. He stated that he sent a legal notice (Mark F) to the defendants for a replacement and compensation but received no response. He also claimed that the airbag system should have deployed to protect his son, but it failed to do so. PW2 corroborated that he was injured in the accident and was wearing a seatbelt at that time. He asserted that the airbags did not deploy during the collision. Further, PW3, a government- approved surveyor, inspected the vehicle and stated that the airbags did not deploy due to a fault in the airbag assembly's manufacturing quality, based on his experience and inspection findings.
47. On the other hand, DW1 denied the vehicle's defect, stating that airbags only deploy under certain conditions as outlined in the owner's manual (Ex. DW1/3). He emphasized that no impact was registered by the airbag system in the SRS Control Module, meaning hereby the conditions for airbag deployment were not met. He also highlighted the plaintiff's failure to prove that he or his son were wearing seat belts.
48. After considering the entire evidence, this court is of the view that SRS report (Ex. DW1/5) (duly supported with certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872) and the owner's manual (Ex. DW1/3) explains that airbags do not deploy in certain situations like low-speed impacts or when specific conditions are not met (e.g., the seatbelt not being worn or Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Page no. 20 of 28 SHARMA Date:
2025.03.20 17:06:35 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
insufficient force in the collision). Moving further, SRS report (Ex. DW1/5) has clearly stated the fact that air bags were not deployed as the collision was on front side of the car and only the front portion had hit the tree, so there is no case of faulty air bags. It did not trigger the air bag censors. Also, the air bags are deployed only when the car is being driven at a very high speed. During cross- examination, it is admitted by PW1 that he had received owner's manual (Ex. DW1/3) at the time of purchasing the vehicle. It is also admitted both by PW1 & PW2 that when the car had hit the tree, the driver of the car took left turn and slowed down the speed below to 50-60 km/hr while the incident happened. It is further admitted by PW2 in his cross examination that accident occurred after a left turn was taken & brakes were applied when the accident was about to happen. Defendant No. 1 claims this injury could only occur if the occupant was not wearing a seat belt. The sudden braking would have caused the plaintiff's son to bend forward, causing his lower lip to strike the dashboard. The contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for defendant at the time of arguments that if plaintiff's son was wearing seat belt, the dashboard would not have caused lower lip injury, appears to be convincing and to believe the version of defendant that at the time of incident, plaintiff's son was not wearing seat belt. This is also one of the reason that why air bags were not Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Page no. 21 of 28 2025.03.20
17:06:42 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 83805/16
SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
deployed. Therefore, the plaintiff has not sufficiently proven the fault of the vehicle.
49. Moreover, the expert opinion given by PW3 is not binding upon this court as overwhelming documentary evidence has been placed on record by the defendant. The opinion of expert is also advisory in nature as per sec 45 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872.
50. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages as claimed because the conditions for airbag deployment were not met according to the owner's manual (Ex. DW1/3) and the vehicle inspection report (SRS) (Ex. DW1/5). Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of registration charges, insurance charges, and MCD taxes as prayed for? (OPP)
51. The burden to prove the same is on plaintiff. The plaintiff seeks the recovery of registration charges, insurance charges, and MCD taxes as part of the damages in the case. However, these charges are regular, routine expenses tied to the ownership of the vehicle, not necessarily to the defect alleged (the airbag failure in this case).
52. The claim does not directly link these charges to any defect or negligence on the part of the defendant (e.g., failure of the Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Page no. 22 of 28 2025.03.20
17:06:49
+0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 83805/16
SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
airbags). The defendant argues that these are ordinary expenses of vehicle ownership, irrespective of the vehicle's performance in the accident. The defendant contends that the failure of the airbags, even if proven, does not necessarily impact these routine costs of ownership (such as registration, insurance, and taxes).
53. These charges are typically unrelated to any defect in the vehicle. These costs would have been incurred even if the vehicle was in perfect working condition. They are part of the regular, ongoing costs of owning and operating a vehicle.
54. Registration charges are paid to the government to register the vehicle, which is a requirement for all vehicle owners. Insurance charges are a cost to protect the vehicle and its occupants, regardless of the vehicle's defect status. MCD taxes are applicable to the vehicle based on ownership, and not on the vehicle's performance in any specific accident.
55. The plaintiff has failed to provide a clear connection between these charges and the defective nature of the vehicle. If the airbag failure had directly resulted in a further financial burden or had led to specific legal costs (for example, medical expenses incurred due to the injury caused by the airbag malfunction), there might be a more reasonable claim for recovery related to these specific charges.
Digitally
signed by
ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
Page no. 23 of 28 2025.03.20
17:06:58
+0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 83805/16
SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
56. Since the charges (registration, insurance, and MCD taxes) are routine and unrelated to the vehicle's defect, the plaintiff cannot substantiate a claim for their recovery just because the airbag allegedly did not deploy. These are not consequential damages caused by the defect.
57. Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide evidence to establish that these charges were a direct consequence of the airbag failure or the defendant's actions.
58. Accordingly, there is no evidence provided by the plaintiff showing that these costs were caused by the defendant's negligence or a defect in the vehicle. The plaintiff is not entitled to recover the registration charges, insurance charges, and MCD taxes, as these are standard expenses of vehicle ownership and are not related to the alleged defect in the vehicle. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
ISSUE NO.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction for replacing the vehicle as prayed for? (OPP)
59. The burden to prove the same is on plaintiff. The plaintiff insisted that the vehicle was defective, particularly the airbag system, and that this defect led to injuries to his son. He demanded a replacement of the vehicle. The defendant denied the vehicle's defect, asserting that the airbag system was functioning Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.03.20 Page no. 24 of 28 17:07:06 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
correctly and did not deploy due to specific conditions not being met, as per the owner's manual (Ex. DW1/3) and SRS report (Ex. DW1/5). He further argued that at the time of cross-examination, plaintiff himself admitted that he had received owner's manual at the time of purchasing the vehicle.
60. The defendant's evidence, including the SRS report and owner's manual, indicates that the airbag did not deploy because the conditions for deployment were not met. Therefore, there is no defect in the vehicle that would warrant a mandatory injunction for its replacement.
61. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to a mandatory injunction for replacing the vehicle. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
ISSUE NO.4 Whether the present suit is not maintainable for lack of cause of action? (OPD1)
62. The burden to prove the same is on defendant no. 1. The defendant argues that the suit is not maintainable due to a lack of cause of action. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking compensation for medical expenses, mental harassment, and a vehicle replacement due to the failure of the airbags.
63. The defendant argued that the suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff failed to register an FIR, failed to mitigate Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Page no. 25 of 28 SHARMA Date:
2025.03.20 17:07:13 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
losses by claiming insurance, and did not approach the appropriate forum for a replacement vehicle (consumer court).
64. However, the plaintiff has raised sufficient legal grounds in the suit by alleging that the vehicle was defective and caused the accident. The plaintiff has a legal right to seek redress for damages arising from the alleged defect in the vehicle.
65. The plaintiff has presented a legitimate cause of action based on the defective airbag system and the injury suffered. The failure to file an FIR does not negate the cause of action in this case. Accordingly, the suit is maintainable, as the plaintiff has provided sufficient grounds for seeking compensation. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.5 Whether the suit has not been valued properly and proper court fees have not been affixed? (OPD1)
66. The burden to prove the same is on defendant no. 1. The defendant argued that no evidence has been presented by the defendant to prove that the suit has not been valued properly or that proper court fees were not paid. The defendant argues that the suit has been improperly valued, but the Court finds that the plaintiff has appropriately valued the suit and paid the necessary court fees. The court fee was calculated based on the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. The court fees and valuation are deemed appropriate. Hence, this Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Page no. 26 of 28 SHARMA Date:
2025.03.20 17:07:19 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83805/16 SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.6 Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of a necessary party?
(OPD1)
67. The burden to prove the same is on defendant no. 1. The defendant argued that the plaintiff did not include the insurance company as a party in the suit. Plaintiff explained that no insurance claim was pursued due to the ongoing case. The defendant argued that the insurance company should have been included as a necessary party, as it might be liable for some of the damages occured due to alleged accident.
68. Since the plaintiff did not pursue an insurance claim, and the insurance company is not directly involved in the primary issue (airbag failure and vehicle defect), the non-joinder of the insurance company does not make the suit bad. Accordingly, the suit is not bad for non-joinder of the insurance company. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
Relief
69. Based on the above analysis, the suit of plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
(i) The plaintiff is not entitled to damages as claimed, due to insufficient proof of vehicle defect causing injury.
Digitally
signed by
ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
Page no. 27 of 28 2025.03.20
17:07:28
+0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 83805/16
SURESH KUMAR VS. HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. ANS.
(ii) The plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of registration charges, insurance charges, and MCD taxes.
(iii) The plaintiff is not entitled to a mandatory injunction for vehicle replacement.
70. No order as to cost.
71. Let decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
72. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court: ANUBHAV by Digitally signed ANUBHAV SHARMA Dated: 20.03.2025 SHARMA Date: 2025.03.20 17:07:34 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01(South)Saket/New Delhi/20.03.2025 Note: -This judgment contains twenty eight pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
Digitally signedANUBHAV by ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.20 17:07:39 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01(South)Saket/New Delhi/20.03.2025 Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Date:
Page no. 28 of 28 SHARMA 2025.03.20
17:07:45
+0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi