M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS P. LTD., PLOT NO. 1, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, RAMNAGAR TALUK BANGLORE (RURAL) KARNATAKA Vs. TIRATH SINGH OBEROI RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 1342, SECTOR 44 CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 07.05.2008, passed by the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in appeal No. 841/2007, M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tirath Singh Oberoi , vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 25.10.2007, passed by the District Forum UT Chandigarh, in consumer complaint No. 841/2005, was upheld.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Tirath Singh Oberoi purchased a Toyota Corolla car from M/s. Pioneer Toyota, Opposite Party (OP-2), manufactured by the petitioner/OP-1 Toyota Kirloskar Motors Limited for a sum of Rs. 10,50,000.00. The said car was delivered on 17.05.2004 and it was duly registered vide registration No. CH03P 2012. In the said car, SRS Air bag system had been provided for better protection of the driver and the accompanying person in the case of accident. It was stated in the consumer complaint that the said car met with an accident on the night of 11 - 12 Sept. 2005, when it was hit by a Swaraj Mazda Truck, which came from the right hand side at the crossing of Sector 45/46 and Sector 49/50 in Chandigarh. The driver of the said truck, while avoiding to hit a scooter, swayed the truck towards the car and the said truck hit on the front head-light area, on the right hand side of the car (driver side). It is mentioned in the consumer complaint that the SRS Air bag did not deploy during the accident, but the complainant, escaped with bruises and some blunt injuries. It was alleged that the Air bag system did not work due to some manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant filed the consumer complaint, in question, seeking directions to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 10,50,000.00, i.e., the cost of the car along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of its purchase till realisation, OR to replace the car with a new car. It was also demanded that a sum of Rs. 25 lakh should be paid to the complainant as compensation for injuries and mental trauma along with Rs. 22,000.00 as cost of litigation.

(3.) The consumer complaint was contested by the respondents by filing a written statement before the District Forum saying that there was no manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. It was further stated that the SRS (Supplementary Restraint System) Air bags in a car were designed to provide further protection for the driver and front passenger in addition to the primary safety protection provided by the seat belts. The SRS Air bag will deploy if the severity of the impact is above the designed threshold level. The conditions under which the Air bags would open had been explained in the owner's manual and also in the Safety Book provided to the complainant. The OPs also stated that there was an angular collision in the present case and there being no direct frontal collision, the SRS Air bag in the vehicle did not deploy. It was evident from the photographs appended with the complaint that the Truck collided with the front right side of the said vehicle and hence, the collision being angular, it did not cause the activation of crash sensor and consequent inflation of the inflammatory unit with the Air bag. It is denied that there was any defect in the design of the vehicle or the Air bags.