Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
M/S A.B. Motors Private Ltd. vs M/S Admiral Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 15 April, 2010
The Complainants are not consumers of the OP No. 2.
The Complaint is barred by limitation since the vehicle was
purchased on 08/11/2012 and the warranty stood concluded
on 09/11/2014 by efflux of time. The vehicle plied for more
than 32,420 kilometers at the time of accident. The Hon'ble
6
National Commission in the case of "A. B. Motors Private
Ltd. Vs. Admiral Impex Pvt. Ltd. And Anr." has ruled out
that where the insurance company has paid and reimbursed
the Complainant, in that situation the Forum cannot allow
any further claim. There is no omission or commission or any
deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 2. The vehicle was
in perfect and defect-free condition before the alleged
accident. The Complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties since the Complainants have not impleaded the
insurance company i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd., which has already approved, settled and paid the claim
of the vehicle. The vehicle is not in the custody of
Complainants and hence the Complainants have no locus
standi to file the Complaint. The Complainant No. 1 has
disposed of the said Swift car. At the time of sale, the
Complainants were provided with the owner's manual and
service booklet which contains warranty policy and
instructions with regard to various systems installed
in the vehicle including safety. The Complainants did not
bother to read those instructions and has filed a Complaint to
make undue gains. The safety features provided in the
vehicle including air bag do not guarantee complete safety to
the passengers and the driver/owner has to acquaint himself
of the safety instructions provided in the owner's manual.
The Complainant No. 1 did not report glowing of malfunction
indicator lamp glowing in the instrument cluster panel of the
vehicle during the tenure of the warranty or even thereafter.
There is no defect in the vehicle. The front air bags are
designed to inflate only in severe frontal collisions and
deployment of air bags would depend upon the seriousness of
the frontal collision on the effective area of the vehicle. The
front air bags are not designed to inflate in rear impacts, side
impacts, rollovers, under the bed of truck or bus, collision
7
with a utility pole or stumpage or minor frontal collisions,
since they would offer no protection in those type of
accidents. The air bag deploys only one time during an
accident and seat belts are needed to restrain the occupants
from further movements during the accident. The accident
occurred in the present case falls under the category of "Front
air bags will probably not inflate" i.e. collision from the side
and therefore the plea of the Complainants of non-deployment
of air bags during the accident is baseless and erroneous.
There was no frontal collision happened to the vehicle in
question.
1