Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

First Appeal No. 850 of 2020

Disposition

dismissed

Advocates

Mr. Rajeev Kumar Yadav and Mr. Divjot Singh Bhatia Advocates, ;
In Person,

Judges

C. Viswanath, Presiding Member

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Case Summary: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — First Appeal No. 850 of 2020

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from an order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No. CC/38/2018. The Appellant (Hyundai Motor India Limited) challenged that order before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Relevant facts as set out in the opinion: On 21.08.2015 the Respondent/Complainant purchased a Hyundai Creta 1.6 VTVT SX+ (Engine No. 95120; Chassis No. MALC381CLFM018320). On 16.11.2017 the vehicle met with an accident on the Delhi–Panipat Highway, causing major damage to the right‑hand front pillar, right‑hand front roof, side body panels, front right‑hand door panels and left‑hand front wheel suspension. The front airbags did not deploy in the accident, and the Complainant and family members were severely injured. A police report was lodged on 16.11.2017 and a legal notice was sent to the Appellant on 23.11.2017 demanding Rs. 50,00,000.

The Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission seeking (inter alia) Rs. 2,00,000 for medical expenses and loss of income, Rs. 20,00,000 for harassment and mental agony, and Rs. 1,60,000 towards litigation expenses. The State Commission, after considering evidence and arguments, directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 2,00,000 (medical expenses and loss of income), Rs. 50,000 (mental agony) and Rs. 50,000 (cost of litigation). The Appellant challenged that order in this First Appeal.

Procedurally, along with the Appeal the Appellant filed IA/7429/2020 seeking condonation of delay of 33 days; the Registry indicated there was no delay and the application was allowed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the consumer complaint was barred by limitation — specifically, whether the cause of action accrued on the date of purchase (21.08.2015) or on the date of the accident/when the defect was discovered (16.11.2017).
Whether the complaint was maintainable in the absence of the dealer as a party (i.e., whether non‑joinder of the dealer and alleged lack of privity of contract between purchaser and manufacturer barred the claim).
Whether the non‑deployment of the airbags constituted a manufacturing defect or deficiency in service by the manufacturer such that the manufacturer should be held liable (including whether expert evidence was required or whether the facts spoke for themselves).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Hyundai Motor India Limited)

The State Commission erred in law by entertaining the complaint despite non‑joinder of the dealer (the dealer is a necessary party and there is no privity of contract between the buyer and the manufacturer).
The complaint was time‑barred because, according to the Appellant, the cause of action accrued on the date of purchase (21.08.2015); the Appellant relied on the Commission's decision in Ishwarlal Amarnai vs. Hero Puch to support this proposition.
On the merits, the Appellant submitted that its liability was limited to the performance of the car and that there was no complaint relating to performance; specifically, airbags deploy only when a minimum threshold force is delivered to sensors and they may not deploy where that threshold is not met (relying on the SRS investigation report of 01.12.2017 which stated the minimum threshold force was not delivered to the sensors).
No expert evidence was produced by the Complainant to prove a manufacturing defect.

Respondent's Arguments (Complainant)

The cause of action arose on the date of the accident (16.11.2017) when the defect (non‑deployment of airbags) became apparent, so the complaint was within the limitation period.
The dealer was only a formal party and not a necessary party; the deficiency was on the part of the manufacturer, making the complaint maintainable against the Appellant.
On the merits, the Respondent contended that the accident involved a high impact and severe damage to the front/right side of the car, yet the airbags did not deploy, resulting in serious injuries; the State Commission was right to hold the manufacturer liable for compensation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Maruti Udyog Limited vs. Nagender Prasad Sinha, II (2009) CPJ 295 (NC)	Relied on by Appellant to argue that a principal is not liable for the acts of its agent (submitted in support of non‑joinder/privity argument).	The Court observed that the Maruti Udyog decision regarding principal/agent was not applicable on the facts of the present case because the present dispute related to an alleged manufacturing defect for which the manufacturer itself was the proper party; therefore Maruti Udyog did not support the Appellant's position here.
Ishwarlal Amarnai vs. Hero Puch & Anr., III (2011) CPJ 132 (NC)	Relied on by Appellant to support the proposition that limitation runs from the date of purchase where defects were apparent from the beginning.	The Court found Ishwarlal distinguishable: in that case defects were evident from the time of purchase, whereas in the present matter the defect (non‑deployment of airbags) became apparent only upon the accident on 16.11.2017; accordingly the limitation argument based on Ishwarlal did not sustain.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded by reviewing the facts established on record, the parties' submissions, documentary material (including photographs and the SRS investigation report) and the findings of the State Commission.

On the question of limitation, the Court accepted the Respondent's position that the cause of action in respect of the non‑deployment of airbags arose on 16.11.2017 — the date of the accident and the date when the defect became known — and not on the date of purchase (21.08.2015). The Court noted that the judgment relied upon by the Appellant (Ishwarlal Amarnai) was distinguishable because in that case the vehicle exhibited problems from the outset, whereas in the present matter the alleged defect manifested only at the time of the accident.

Regarding privity/non‑joinder, the Appellant argued that the dealer was a necessary party and that there was no privity of contract between manufacturer and buyer. The Court explained that the Maruti Udyog precedent relied on by the Appellant dealt with principal‑agent liability and was not on point: the present dispute concerns a claimed manufacturing defect by the manufacturer itself, not liability of a principal for an agent's act. On these facts, the Court did not accept the non‑joinder/privity argument as a bar to maintainability.

On the merits, the Court examined the physical evidence (photographs) and the factual findings of the State Commission. The State Commission had observed that the damage concentrated on the front/right side of the vehicle and that the airbags did not deploy; the opposite party (manufacturer) itself admitted the airbags did not deploy upon inspecting the vehicle. The Appellant's SRS investigation report stated that the minimum threshold force required for deployment was not delivered to the sensors. The Court noted, however, that the photographs and the condition of the vehicle showed extensive damage to the front/right side (including smashed bumper grill, dashboard and radiator), supporting the State Commission's conclusion that the impact was substantial.

The Court accepted the State Commission's approach that, in the particular factual circumstances, expert evidence was not indispensable because "the facts speak for themselves" — the State Commission had characterized the case as one of Res Ipsa Loquitur given the photographic evidence of heavy damage and the admitted non‑deployment of airbags. The Court found no reason to disagree with the State Commission's assessment that the manufacturer was liable to compensate the Complainant for the injuries and losses sustained.

The Court also recorded that the Appellant failed to point to any illegality or material irregularity in the State Commission's order that would warrant interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The First Appeal was dismissed. The National Commission held that the impugned order passed by the State Commission was justified and found no ground for interference; the appeal was therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

Direct effects on the parties:

The State Commission's directions stand: payment by the opposite party (manufacturer) of Rs. 2,00,000 for medical expenses and loss of income, Rs. 50,000 for mental agony, and Rs. 50,000 as litigation cost (as awarded by the State Commission).
The Appellant's contentions on limitation, privity/non‑joinder and the need for expert proof of manufacturing defect were not accepted by the National Commission on the facts before it.

Broader implications: The opinion did not purport to lay down a new legal principle; it applied existing reasoning to the facts before the Court and affirmed the State Commission's factual findings and award. The Court explicitly found that there was no illegality or irregularity in the State Commission's order warranting interference, and therefore no new precedent was set.

This summary is based exclusively on the content of the provided opinion and does not add information beyond that text.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Hyundai Motor India Limited (S) v. Shailender Bhatnagar (S).

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

FIRST APPEAL NO. 850 OF 2020

(Against the Order dated 07/10/2020 in Complaint No. CC/38/2018 of the State Commission Delhi)

1. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED

5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, CORPORATE ONE, BAANI

BUILDING, PLOT NO.5, COMMERCIAL CENTRE,

JASOLA VIHAR

South East DELHI ...........Appellant(s) Versus

1. SHAILENDER BHATNAGAR

48 A, JYOTI APARTMENTS, ROHINI SECTOR-14

NORTH WEST

DELHI ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Yadav, Advocate Mr. Divjot Singh Bhatia, Advocate

For the Respondent : In Person

Dated : 05 Jan 2021

ORDER

1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party against Order passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in CC/38/2018 dated 07.10.2020.

2. Alongwith the Appeal, IA/7429/2020, application for condonation of delay of 33 days has also been filed by the Appellant. However, according to the Registry, there is no delay in filing the Appeal. Accordingly, IA/7429/2020 is allowed.

2. Case of the Complainant is that on 21.08.2015 Complainant/Respondent purchased a vehicle, Creta 1.6 VTVT SX+ bearing Engine No.95120, Chasis No.MALC381CLFM018320 from the Appellant/Opposite Party. In the car, there was facility of two front airbags. On 16.11.2017, when the Complainant was travelling with his family, the car met with an accident on Delhi-Panipat Highway, resulting in major damage to RH front pillar, RH front roof, side body panels front RH door panels and LH front wheel suspension. In the accident, front airbags of the car did not open, due to which the Complainant and his family members were severely injured. On 16.11.2017, Complainant lodged police report at Police Station G.T.

Road, Ghanaur, District Sonepat. On 23.11.2017, Complainant sent a legal notice to the Appellant/Opposite Party demanding Rs.50 Lakhs for the loss and physical and mental trauma suffered by the Complainant and his family. Opposite Party got the accidental inspected car and admitted that the airbags did not open but did not make payment of the amount demanded by the Complainant. Complainant filed Complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer: -

"a. Direct the Respondent to compensate the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- including the medical expenses and professional loss borne by the complainant for him and his family also.

b. Direct the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs only) on account of harassment and mental agony faced by the Complainant.

c. Pay Rs.1,60,000/- (One lakh sixty thousand) towards litigation expenses.

d. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice."

3. Opposite Party contested the Complaint by filing reply. It was stated that the allegations made in the Complaint were false and frivolous. Complainant failed to make out a case against the Opposite Party and failed to prove that the Opposite Party had promised or assured any service which was not provided to the Complainant. It was also stated that the Complaint was barred by limitation as the limitation shall be reckoned from the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e. 21.08.2015. Complaint was also not maintainable on the ground of mis-joinder of party, as the Dealer from whom the car was purchased, was not made a party in the Complaint. Opposite Party also stated that as there was no manufacturing defect in the car, it was not liable as its liability was only limited to the performance of the car. Once the car was damaged in the accident, the same is not covered under warranty/extended warranty and the repair was carried out on chargeable basis.

4. State Commission after going through the evidence and documents placed on record and hearing the arguments of both the parties directed as follows:-

"Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present consumer complaint, we direct the opposite party to:

a. Compensate the complainant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for medical expenses and loss of income.

b. Compensate the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- for mental

agony. c. Pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation."

5. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party filed the present Appeal. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent in person and carefully perused the material on record.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the State Commission passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the facts of the case. He submitted that the Complaint itself was not maintainable before the State Commission for non-joinder of necessary party, because the Dealer from whom the Complainant had purchased the car was not made a party in the Complaint. It was submitted that the Dealer purchases the car from the Opposite Party and the purchased cars are sold to the customers. There is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. The State Commission failed to appreciate this legal aspect of the matter. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the judgment of this Commission in Maruti Udyog Limited vs. Nagender Prasad Sinha II (2009) CPJ 295 (NC). He also submitted that the Complaint was barred by limitation as the cause of action for filing the Complaint accrued to the Complainant on 21.08.2015, when the car was purchased. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the judgment of this Commission in Ishwarlal Amarnai vs. Hero Puch & Anr. [III (2011) CPJ 132 NC]. On merits, it was submitted that the liability of the Opposite Party was limited to the performance of the car and there was no complaint regarding performance of the car, hence the claim against the Opposite Party did not sustain. It was submitted that the airbags deploy only when there is severe impact of force and airbags may not deploy if the vehicle collides with the objects like poles and trees, when full force of the impact is not delivered to the sensors.

7. Respondent/Complainant submitted that the Complaint was within limitation period since the cause of action arose on the date of accident i.e. 16.11.2017 and not from the date of purchase i.e. 21.08.2015. He also submitted that the dealer was only a formal party and not necessary party and the deficiency was only on the part of the Opposite Party. The Complaint was, therefore, maintainable. On merits, the Respondent/Complainant submitted that the accident occurred with a high impact of force and resulted in damage to RH front pillar, RH front roof, side body panels front RH door panels and LH front wheel suspension. He submitted that due to defective airbags, the Complainant and his family members sustained major injuries and the State Commission, therefore, rightly held the Opposite Party liable to pay compensation.

8. State Commission observed that the major impact of collision of the vehicle was on the right hand front pillar, right hand front roof and the left hand front wheel suspension, all three of which lie on the front side of the vehicle. It was also observed that the airbags in the vehicle purchased by the Complainant was defective as the same did not work when the vehicle collided with the truck.

9. On 21.08.2015, Complainant purchased a vehicle, Creta 1.6 VTVT SX+ bearing Engine No.95120, chasis No.MALC381CLFM018320 from the Appellant/Opposite Party. On 16.11.2017, car met with an accident, resulting in major damage to RH front pillar, RH front roof, side body panels front RH door panels and LH front wheel suspension. Airbags of the car did not deploy, due to which the Complainant and his family members sustained severe injuries. On 16.11.2017, Complaint was also lodged with Police Station G.T. Road, Ghanaur, District Sonepat, On 23.11.2017, Complainant sent a legal notice to the Appellant/Opposite Party demanding Rs.50 Lakhs for the loss and physical and mental trauma suffered by the Complainant and his family. Opposite Party got the vehicle inspected and admitted that the airbags did not deploy but did not make payment of the amount demanded by the Complainant.

10. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the limitation will start from the date of purchase i.e. 21.08.2015. In this case, however, cause of action arose on the date of accident i.e. 16.11.2017, when the defect relating to non-deployment of airbags came to the notice of the Complainant. Judgment relied by Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party in Ishwarlal Amarnai (supra) is distinguishable in the facts. In that case, Complainant purchased Hero Puch EZ, which started giving trouble including overflow of fuel, high consumption of petrol and trouble with the steering, from the very beginning. In the present case, the defect was noticed only on the date of accident i.e. 16.11.2017. The argument of the Opposite Party that the Complaint was time barred, therefore, does not sustain.

11. Regarding privity of contract, Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party submitted that there was no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party and therefore the Opposite Party was not liable to pay any damages to the Complainant. Judgment relied by Learned Counsel for the Appellant in Maruti Udyog Limited vs. Nagender Prasad Sinha (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the case. In that case, this Commission held that principal is not liable for the act done by its agent. In the present case, there is no issue regarding act of the agent and liability of the principal. In the case on hand, the issue relates to a manufacturing defect and the manufacturer is the Appellant/Opposite Party. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party submitted that the airbags deploy only when there is severe impact of force and airbags may not deploy if the vehicle collides with objects like poles and trees, when full force of the impact is not delivered to the sensors. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the SRS Investigation report dated 01.12.2017 clearly stated that the impact of the accident was such that the minimum threshold force required for the deployment of the airbags was not delivered to the front sensors installed in the engine compartment and hence, the airbags did not deploy. No expert evidence was produced by the Respondent to substantiate any manufacturing defect. The Complainant contended that he purchased the car for its safety features highlighted by the Manufacturer, but the airbags did not function when required, due to which he sustained serious injuries as can be seen from the medical prescriptions and bills furnished by the Complainant. The impact/force required for triggering the front airbags was not made known to the Complainant. Nowhere has the minimum threshold force been quantified and this defence can never be refuted. Highlighting safety features including airbags while selling the car and not elaborating and disclosing the threshold limits for their opening is by itself an unfair trade practice. Complainant, however, had filed photographs of the accidental car. Major damage to RH front pillar, RH front roof, side body panels front RH door panels and LH front wheel suspension is seen in the photographs of the car. Without forceful impact, the car would not have been so badly

damaged. The accident was a major accident in which the entire deriver side of the car, the side part and even the front mirror of the car got smashed and broken. The impact of the accident was so intense that the front bumper grill, dash board and the radiator got totally damaged. The State Commission rightly observed "that expert evidence need not be relied upon where the facts speak for themselves. This is a case of Res Ipsa Loquitur where the photographs of the damaged vehicle placed on record clearly show the impact of the accident on the vehicle."

12. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the State Commission is justified. Appellant failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of Appellate jurisdiction Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.

......................

C. VISWANATH

PRESIDING MEMBER

Hyundai Motor India Limited (S) v. Shailender Bhatnagar (S).

Case Summary: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — First Appeal No. 850 of 2020

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Hyundai Motor India Limited)

Respondent's Arguments (Complainant)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Hyundai Motor India Limited (S) v. Shailender Bhatnagar (S).

Comments