HONDA CARS INDIA LTD. [Appellant(s)]  Vs. USHAT GULGULE   [Respondent(s)]

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1054 OF 2016

(2JB, HON’BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, and HON’BLE DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER)

Facts: The present appeal under Section 19 with Section 21(a)(ii) read with of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) challenges the order dated 17.06.2016 of the State Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (in short, the ‘State Commission’) in Complaint Case No. CC/13/329 partly allowing the appeal and directing the appellant herein to pay compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- within two months to the respondent failing which to pay the same with interest @ 9% pa till realization along with costs of Rs 25,000/-. Appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint with costs and to pass such order(s) as deemed fit and proper.

Issue: Whether the non-deployment of the airbags constituted a manufacturing defect warranting the invoking of the doctrine of punitive damages as claimed by the respondent (complainant before the State Commission)?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

Appellant’s contentions are that the complaint was bad for misjoinder of parties since the Dealer with whom the appellant has a ‘principal to principal’ relationship and from whom the car was purchased was not made a party. It was argued that the respondent had not contended that the car suffered from a manufacturing defect and therefore the manufacturer cannot be held liable under the Act unless this was proved. The respondent relied upon a brief opinion from the Western India Automobile Association which did not constitute an ‘Expert Opinion’ under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and did not state that there was a manufacturing defect. It was contended that the accident was a non-frontal collision close to SRS sensors and therefore the airbags did not deploy. There was also no extreme, offset collision with an oncoming vehicle or impact with a stationary obstacle resulting in sudden deceleration warranting deployment of the airbags as per the car’s Manual.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the price of the car with air bags was higher and the premium paid was for the additional safety feature provided by the air bags. The cost of repairs of the car was Rs 1,93,983/- apart from the serious injuries due to a ligament tear in the left shoulder suffered by the respondent which took 6 months to heal. According to the respondent, the report of the Western India Automobile Association constituted an ‘Expert Opinion’ and it had stated that the air bags ought to have opened given the nature of the accident. Reliance was placed on a report in the Times of India newspaper dated 09.09.2015 that the Appellant Company had recalled nearly 2,00,000 Honda Civic sedan cars between 2003 and 2012 due to problems with airbags. Since the appellant defended the non-deployment of air bags on specious grounds and denied that there was a manufacturing defect in the air bags, punitive damages of Rs 25,00,000/- had been claimed.

Held: The court dismissed the present appeal and held that, “From a reading of the provisions of the Act, the establishment of a good to have inherent defects, a Consumer Forum has to necessarily obtain a report from a person/organization who is an expert in the field and is an ‘appropriate’ agency as defined under the Act. Only after the establishment of such a defect can the Forum award damages or consider award of punitive damages. Admittedly this process has not been adopted in the instant case. The report of the Western India Automobile Association cannot be relied upon as an ‘expert opinion’ for the reason that it is neither an ‘appropriate laboratory’ as defined in Section 2(1)(a) nor does it provide any assessment of the failure of the airbags to deploy with reference to the Manual and the accident in terms of the speed, direction and location of the impact of the collision based on which a finding of whether the sensors should or should not have activated the airbags has been arrived at. In the absence of there being any technical or expert opinion as required under Section 13(1)(c), the finding of the State Commission of a defect in the car is not sustainable.”