New Delhi: car maker hyundai (Hyundai) during an accident to the Creta (Creta) Due to non-opening of the airbags of the SUV, the owner will have to pay Rs 3 lakh. The petitioner, Shailendra Bhatnagar, was seriously injured in 2017 due to non-opening of the airbags of the SUV during a road accident. On this, the Supreme Court has directed the car maker (Hyundai) to pay Rs 3 lakh to Bhatnagar.
According to the information, Shailendra Bhatnagar had bought the Hyundai Creta (1.6 VTVT SX+ variant) SUV in August 2015. There were two airbags in the front of the car. The car owners were very alert about their safety and hence they opted for the special edition of the car. However, on November 16, 2017, Bhatnagar met an accident on the Delhi-Panipat highway while traveling in his car (Hyundai Creta). But surprisingly, the airbags present in the car did not open.
As a result Bhatnagar suffered multiple injuries on his body including head and face. The owner filed a case against the carmaker with the Delhi State Consumer Redressal Commission. The state commission ruled in favor of the owner and asked Hyundai to pay a compensation of Rs 3 lakh. The compensation included Rs 2 lakh for medical expenses and loss of income, Rs 50,000 for litigation and Rs 50,000 for mental agony caused to the car owner.
As the matter was challenged in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), the decision came in favor of the owner. Ultimately this decision was challenged in the Supreme Court. The top court also ruled in favor of the owner of the Creta and asked Hyundai to pay the compensation.
In its defence, the company’s counsel argued that the conditions of the accident did not meet the conditions for deployment of airbags. However, Supreme Court judges argued that there was damage to the front of the SUV, and that it was a failure in the airbag deployment system.
The judges hearing the case said consumers are not experts in physics to calculate collision intensity and the airbags must be naturally positioned. The top court not only upheld the decision of the NCDRC but also asked the automaker to replace the vehicle.
first published:April 24, 2022, 4:50 p.m.