New Delhi, April 22: The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the compensation awarded to a consumer who suffered injuries due to non-deployment of air bags of his Hyundai Creta car during a collision as a consequence of which he suffered head, chest and dental injuries, reports Bar and Bench. .
A bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose held that the safety description of the goods fell short of its expected quality and the same would make the company liable to pay damages to the consumer.
“Purchase decision of the respondent-complainant was largely made on the basis of representation of the safety features of the vehicle. The failure to provide an airbag system which would meet the safety standards as perceived by a carbuyer of reasonable prudence, in our view, should be subject to punitive damages which can have deterrent effect,” the Court said.
The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal filed by Hyundai Motor India Limited against an order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had upheld an order of the Delhi State Consumer Redressal Commission ordering compensation of ?3 lakh to the complainant-consumer.
“There was no specific exclusion clause to insulate the manufacturer from claim of damages of this nature. Even if there were such a clause, legality thereof could be open to legal scrutiny,” the Court ruled.
The complainant had purchased the car model Creta 1.6 VTVT SX+. The vehicle came with two front airbags. Purchase of the vehicle was made on August 21, 2015. It met with an accident on the Delhi-Panipat highway on November 16, 2017 resulting in substantial damage to its right hand (RH) front pillar, RH front roof, side body panels, front RH door panels and left hand front wheel suspension.
At that point of time, the complainant, his mother and daughter were in the vehicle. The airbags of the vehicle did not deploy at the time of collision. The complainant suffered head, chest as also dental injuries. He attributes such injuries to non-deployment of airbags at the time of accident. The appellant themselves obtained an investigation report which has been referred to as SRS report.
The Delhi State Consumer Redressal Commission, in a complaint raised by the respondent, upheld his claim. The main ground in his complaint was that the primary reason for his purchase decision of the model was because of its safety features including the airbags and the injury was suffered by him because of non-deployment of the airbags.
The State Commission ordered the following compensation to be paid to the respondent-complainant:
– An amount of ?2,00,000 for medical expenses and loss of income;
– An amount of ?50,000 for mental agony;
– An amount of ?50,000 as cost of litigation.
Pertinently, the NCDRC also ordered Hyundai to replace the vehicle with a new one.
The NCDRC by way of its verdict of January 5, 2021 upheld the State Commission’s decision.
This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the appellant, argued that the order for replacement of the vehicle ought not to have been passed since the same was not a part of the reliefs claimed before the State Commission.
Drawing attention to the user manual, Ahmadi stated that if force generated by the collision was lesser than a certain degree, there would not be deployment of airbags. Thus, there was no defect in the security system according to him.
In fact, it was contended that impact of the accident was from the side, and it was not a frontal hit.
Before the commission, the issue of limitation was also taken by the appellant who stated that the limitation ran from the date of purchase of the vehicle, and not the date of the accident.
Considering these submissions, the Bench clarified that in such a situation, the limitation would run from the day the defect surfaced since there was no way by which the nature of defect complained against could be identified in normal circumstances at an earlier date before the collision.
Further, refusing to interfere with the order under challenge, the Court added that ordinarily a consumer while purchasing a vehicle with airbags would assume that the same would be deployed whenever there was a collision from the front portion of the vehicle.
“Both the fora, in their decisions, have highlighted the fact that there was significant damage to the front portion of the vehicle. Deployment of the airbags ought to have prevented injuries being caused to those travelling in the vehicle, particularly in the front seat,” the Court said.
A consumer is not expected to be an expert in physics, calculating the impact of a collision on the theories based on velocity and force, the Court made it clear.
Hence, the direction for replacement of the vehicle was justified in the facts of this case, the apex court said.
“Such damages, in our view, can be awarded in the event the defect is found to have the potential to cause serious injury or major loss to the consumer, particularly in respect of safety features of a vehicle,” the judgment reasoned.
The Bench went on to clarify that the failure to provide an airbag system which would meet the safety standards as perceived by a car buyer of “reasonable prudence” should be subject to punitive damages in order to have a deterrent effect.
“We are also of the view that the directions issued against the appellant by the State Commission and upheld by the National Commission cannot be said to have failed the test of proportionality,” the Court concluded.
The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
