Failure of a automotive producer to offer an airbag system ought to be topic to punitive damages which might have a deterrent impact, the Supreme Court has mentioned.
“The failure to offer an airbag system which might meet the protection requirements as perceived by a automotivepurchaser of affordable prudence, in our view, ought to be topic to punitive damages which might have a deterrent impact.
“And in computing such punitive damages, the capacity of the manufacturing enterprise should also be a factor,” mentioned a bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose.
The bench mentioned {that a} shopper whereas shopping for a automotive would assume that the airbag would open mechanically in case of collision.
Further, a shopper isn’t meant to be an knowledgeable in physics calculating the impression of a collision on the theories primarily based on velocity and pressure, the highest courtroom mentioned.
The statement got here whereas listening to an attraction filed by Hyundai Motor India Limited in opposition to an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which dismissed the attraction sustaining the compensation awarded by the State Commission.
The appellant is a car producer and the attraction arises out of a grievance made by a automotive purchaser regarding a defect in a car, notably regarding its security options originating from its car mannequin Creta 1.6 VTVT SX+.The car, bought on August 21, 2015, got here with two entrance airbags and met with an accident on the Delhi-Panipat freeway on November 16, 2017, leading to substantial injury to the automotive.
The complainant suffered head, chest as additionally dental accidents which he attributed to non deployment of airbags on the time of the accident.
The state fee awarded a compensation of Rs two lakh for medical bills and lack of revenue, Rs.50,000 for psychological agony, and Rs 50,000 as the price of litigation.
The state fee additionally mentioned that failure in changing the car of the appellant will even appeal to an curiosity of seven per cent each year of the worth of the car from the date of default.
The prime courtroom in its order mentioned that the truth that the buyer has obtained the automotive repaired on insurance coverage cash wouldn’t impression the quantum of damages, which is partly punitive in nature on this case.
“We accordingly do not want to interfere with the decision of the National Commission. We do not find the reasoning of the Commission or the operative part of the order awarding damages to be perverse,” the bench mentioned.
Source: www.financialexpress.com”