Consumer Commissions Not Suitable For Cases Involving Extensive Evidence, Jodhpur Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Maruti Suzuki

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench, headed by Dr. Shyam Sundar Lata (President) and Balveer Khudkhudiya (Member), addressed a complaint related to an accident where the automatic airbags of Maruti Suzuki Brezza failed to deploy. The bench acknowledged the significance of collision details, such as force and side-impact, in determining whether the airbags should have been activated. Consequently, the Consumer Commission was deemed unsuitable for cases requiring in-depth evidence, and the complainant was granted the option to pursue the matter in a civil court.Brief Facts:Dinesh Kumar Tak (“Complainant”) purchased a Maruti Vitara Brezza from Maruti Suzuki India Limited (“Manufacturer”) on 6th October 2019. At the time of purchase, the vehicle was advertised as having high-quality airbags that would automatically deploy in the event of an accident, thereby preventing any harm to the occupants and their property. Subsequently, an accident occurred on March 10th, 2020, involving the vehicle while it was being driven near Riyan village in Jodhpur. However, contrary to the expectations set during the purchase, the airbags in the vehicle did not deploy. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur, Rajasthan (“District Commission”).The manufacturer contended that airbags are designed to deploy in specific conditions, particularly in cases of a serious collision from the front side. They explained that airbags do not deploy in every type of accident and provided details about the conditions for airbag deployment, which were mentioned in the owner's manual supplied with the vehicle. They further argued that the complainant's vehicle had a normal accident that did not involve a collision from the front and did not meet the conditions specified for airbag deployment. They stated that the non-deployment of airbags was not due to a manufacturing defect but was related to the circumstances of the accident.Observations by the Commission:The District Commission noted that circumstances surrounding the accident and the specific nature of the collision played a pivotal role in determining whether the airbags should have been deployed. The District Commission recognized that this dispute involved intricate factual issues that could only be determined with detailed evidence. They emphasized that such evidence should encompass both oral and written submissions from both parties.Consequently, it held that these issues could not be determined within the framework of the summary proceedings governed by the Consumer Protection Act and need extensive evidence on both sides to support the claim. The District Commission granted the complainant the freedom to pursue the matter in a civil court, recognizing that more extensive and detailed evidence could be presented and considered in such a setting.Case: Dinesh Kumar Tak vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd and Anr.Case No.: CC/284/2020Advocate for the Complainant: Navneet Singh Brikh Advocate for the Respondent: Anil SharmaClick Here To Read/Download Order

Consumer Commissions Not Suitable For Cases Involving Extensive Evidence, Jodhpur Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Maruti Suzuki

Smita Singh

Tags