HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED versus SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 107 · Decided: 20-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VINEET SARAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
107
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 107
107
HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED
v.
SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR
(Civil Appeal No. 3001 of 2022)
APRIL 20, 2022
[VINEET SARAN AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s. 14(1) – Defect in respect
of safety features of a vehicle – Award of punitive damages – On
facts, non-deployment of air bags in the car at the time of accident
resulting in injuries to the complainant – Award of compensation
by fora below – On appeal, held: Fora below rightly relied on the
principle of  Res Ipsa Loquitur to affix the liability of the manufacturer
as regards defect in the airbag system, having regard to the nature
of the collision and took the view that expert evidence was not
necessary – They highlighted that there was significant damage to
the front portion of the vehicle – Ordinarily a consumer while
purchasing a vehicle with airbags would assume that the same would
be deployed whenever there is a collision from the front portion of
the vehicle – Deployment of the airbags ought to have prevented
injuries being caused to those travelling in the vehicle, particularly
in the front seat – Consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics
calculating the impact of a collision on the theories based on velocity
and force – Thus, no error in the findings of the two fora as regards
there being defect in the vehicle – As per the statute, the direction
could be for replacement of defective goods as also punitive
damages – In the facts of the case, direction for replacement of the
vehicle is justified and the fact that the consumer has got the car
repaired on insurance money would not impact the quantum of
damages, which is partly punitive in nature – Failure to provide an
airbag system which would meet the safety standards to be subject
to punitive damages – Thus, the decision of the National Commission
not interfered with – Sale of Goods Act, 1930 – ss. 2(7), 16.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Vehicles are goods within the meaning of Section
2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and they carry implied
conditions as to their fitness. That is a statutory mandate and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
that mandate also operates in respect of goods, whose defect is
subject of proceeding in a consumer complaint under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the complaint, it has been
pleaded that the respondent had relied on the safety features of
the vehicle projected by the manufacturer. In such a situation,
the limitation will run from the day the defect surfaces in a case.
There is no way by which the nature of defect complained against
could be identified in normal circumstances at an earlier date,
before the collision took place. In this case, the safety feature of
the vehicle fell short of the quality of fitness as was represented
by the manufacturer by implication. The National Commission’s
view is broadly based on the principle incorporated in Section 16
of the 1930 Act. The defect in this case ought to be treated to
have had surfaced on the date of the accident itself. [Para 7]
[115-F-H; 116-A-B]
1.2 The question on privity of contract was raised on the
ground that the dealer was not impleaded as a party and there
was no contract between the appellant and the respondent
consumer. This issue was rightly rejected by both the fora.
[Para 8][116-H; 117-A]
1.3 There are findings of the two fora about the defect in
the product sold, in this case being a vehicle. This was sold with
front airbags and there was frontal damage. The airbags did not
deploy. The accident caused injuries to the respondent. The
appellant referred to various portions from the owner’s manual
to contend that the impact of the collision was not sufficient to
activate the sensor which in turn would have resulted in
deployment of the airbags. The State Commission relied on the
principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur to affix the liability of the
manufacturer as regards defect in the airbag system, having
regard to the nature of the collision. The National Commission
affirmed this finding referring to certain photographs of the
damaged vehicle, which showed substantial frontal damage. In
such circumstances, both the said fora took the view that expert
evidence was not necessary in the subject case. Such view cannot
be faulted as being unreasonable, in the given facts. [Para 9]
[117-B-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
109
1.4 Ordinarily a consumer while purchasing a vehicle with
airbags would assume that the same would be 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.