Hyundai Motor India Limited vs Shailendra Bhatnagar on 20 April, 2022
13. He further contended that the District Commission proceeded solely
on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hyundai Motor
India Vs. Shailendra Bhatnagar but had not provided any reasoning or
justification to conclude that the Appellant was deficient in rendering its
services. The District Commission failed to take into account the factual
circumstances and context in which the judgment of Hyundai was
rendered and failed to provide any reasoning as to how the said judgment
12
was applicable to the facts of the present case. In the Hyundai judgment,
one of the major factors for concluding that the airbags were defective was
the extent of impact of the vehicle and the consequent injuries suffered by
the passengers. But in the present case, unlike Hyundai, the extent of
impact and its absorption was different. In the present case, both pillars
(A pillar and B pillar) were intact, whereas in Hyundai, the RH front pillar
was substantially damaged. The District Commission also failed to note
that unlike the case in Hyundai, the impact of the accident was entirely
absorbed by the crumple zone of the vehicle which was evident from the
fact that there was no damage to the cabin or injuries to the passengers of
the vehicle and the District Commission failed to notice that no major
injuries were suffered by Respondent No.2.