Decided on January 05,2021

Shailender Bhatnagar Respondents


C.VISWANATH, J. - (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.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.