Driver Negligence, Not Manufacturing Defect: Karnataka State Consumer Commission Allows Honda Cars India's Appeal
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Divyashree M. ( Member) has allowed appeals filed by Honda Cars India Ltd. and Peninsula Honda, setting aside a District Commission order that had previously held them liable for a car's engine failure. The State Commission observed that the damage was a consequential...
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Divyashree M. ( Member) has allowed appeals filed by Honda Cars India Ltd. and Peninsula Honda, setting aside a District Commission order that had previously held them liable for a car's engine failure. The State Commission observed that the damage was a consequential loss resulting from the driver's negligence—specifically driving the vehicle without a radiator cap—rather than any inherent manufacturing defect.
Brief Facts
The complainant purchased a Honda Amaze car from Peninsula Honda (Opposite Party No. 2), manufactured by Honda Cars India Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 1), on 23-03-2016 for a consideration of ₹8,20,000. The complainant insured the vehicle with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 3) for the period from 23-03-2016 to 22-03-2017 on payment of a premium of ₹23,748.
On 15-10-2016, while the car was being driven by the complainant's brother, the temperature gauge indicated excessive heating. The vehicle slowed down and eventually broke down near Udupi. The car was towed by a mechanic from Shama Honda (Opposite Party No. 4) to their service centre. After two days, when the complainant visited the service centre, he was informed that there was a major engine failure and that the insurer would be contacted before undertaking repairs.
However, even after 15 days, the car was not repaired by OP No. 4 as it required transfer to a larger service centre. Consequently, the complainant towed the vehicle from Udupi to Mangaluru, where OP No. 2 repaired the car and raised an invoice for ₹3,06,012, which was paid by the complainant. When the complainant approached OP No. 3, the insurer repudiated the claim on the ground that the damage constituted a consequential loss arising from mechanical breakdown, wear and tear, and negligence, which were specifically excluded under the policy.
Aggrieved by the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the manufacturer and the dealer in selling a faulty car, and by the repudiation of the insurance claim, the complainant filed a complaint before the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangaluru. The District Commission allowed the complaint against the manufacturer and the dealer, directing them to pay ₹2,65,550 with interest at 6%, while dismissing the complaint against the insurer and the service centre. Aggrieved by the said order, the manufacturer and the dealer approached the State Commission.
Arguments by the Parties
Honda Cars India Ltd. (OP No. 1) contended that the vehicle had functioned satisfactorily for seven months and had covered 10,000 kilometres, thereby negating any allegation of an inherent manufacturing defect. It was further argued that the damage occurred due to improper maintenance in violation of the owner's manual, resulting in consequential loss.
Peninsula Honda (OP No. 2) contended that the engine failure was caused by negligent driving, relying on the complainant's own admission that the radiator cap had come off and the vehicle continued to be driven despite overheating, which resulted in severe engine damage. The dealer also pointed out that the complainant had failed to adhere to the prescribed service schedule.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP No. 3) justified the repudiation of the claim on the ground that the damage was a consequential loss arising from negligence, which was expressly excluded under the insurance policy, and therefore did not amount to any deficiency in service.
Findings of the Commission
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, while allowing the appeals set aside the findings of the District Commission. The Commission held that the complainant had failed to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The Commission observed that no expert or technical evidence had been produced to substantiate the allegation of a manufacturing defect. It further noted that the vehicle had not been maintained in accordance with the service procedures prescribed in the owner's manual.
The Commission found that the engine failure arose due to the driver's negligence. It noted that the radiator cap came off while the vehicle was in motion and that the car continued to be driven thereafter, leading to overheating and eventual engine failure. The Commission observed that running the vehicle without a radiator cap amounted to negligent driving, which directly caused the damage to the engine. Consequently, the insurer was held to have rightly repudiated the claim, and no deficiency in service was made out against it.
Accordingly, the State Commission held that the District Commission's order was perverse and illegal, having accepted the complainant's allegations without adequate proof. The appeals were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint against the manufacturer and the dealer was dismissed.
Case Title: Honda Cars India Ltd vs Prathap.M SC/29/A/825 & 857/2021