Case Title: Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs. Ushat Gulgule
Case Number: F. A. No. 1054/2016
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently made a ruling emphasizing the need for expert opinions when proving defects. The members of the commission, Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker, stated that a report from a recognized expert organization is crucial for proving a defect in a consumer forum.
The case revolved around a Honda Civic car purchased by the complainant for Rs. 13,20,003. After a collision, the car’s airbags failed to deploy, resulting in injuries and medical expenses of Rs 40,000. The complainant claimed this was due to a manufacturing defect and sought compensation of Rs 43,50,000 and Rs 25,000 in costs.
The dealer countered these claims, stating that the conditions necessary for airbag deployment, as stated in the car’s manual, were not met during the accident. They further argued that the complainant did not provide sufficient proof of a manufacturing defect, as the report from the Western India Automobile Association was not recognized as an ‘Expert Opinion’.
The NCDRC’s observations centered on whether the non-deployment of the airbags indicated a manufacturing defect. They noted that under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, proving a ‘deficiency’ requires an expert opinion from an ‘appropriate laboratory’.
In this case, the Commission found that the Western India Automobile Association’s report did not qualify as an expert opinion since it is not an ‘appropriate laboratory’ and did not analyze the specifics of the airbag failure.
The Commission also pointed out that the compensation awarded by the State Commission was based partly on the insurance payment and not on hard evidence that a seat belt was necessary for airbag deployment. As such, the State Commission’s determination of a manufacturing defect and the consequent compensation lacked factual or legal support.
Consequently, the NCDRC allowed the appeal by the dealer and overturned the order by the State Commission, ruling that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the dealer.
This case underscores the importance of expert opinions in consumer disputes. It demonstrates that for a claim to stand in court, it must be supported by valid and recognized expert analysis. For consumers, this is a reminder to seek expert opinions when dealing with complex disputes, such as those involving potential manufacturing defects. For service providers, it emphasizes the need for clear and transparent communication about product usage and safety guidelines.
