R.GOPALNATHAN vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY

THE complainant has filed this complaint for a direction to the opposite parties (for short, the "O.Ps.") to pay compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 on account of the agony, shock, mental torture, trauma and pain suffered by the complainant with interest at 15% per annum from 24.5.2000 till the date of payment with cost. In addition to this, the complainant has also sought for a sum of Rs. 50,000 for expenses incurred by him in following up with the O.Ps. with regard to claiming the loss towards baggage and claim made towards compensation and for the subsequent correspondence etc.

THE facts in this case are as follows: THE complainant on being attracted by the advertisement issued by O.P. No. 2 purchased a "Ford Icon" car in the month of April, 2000. After the first service, the complainant and his wife Mrs. Anusuya Gopalnathan had to go to Chennai in the said car on 24.5.2000 as they had to attend a wedding in Chennai with one Mr. Devappa K. Bayali as their Chauffeur. At that time the car had not been used for more than 2,000 kilometres. When the vehicle was on the National Highway from Bangalore to Chennai, the complainant and his wife dozed off in the car. THE complainant and his wife suddenly were awakened by the screaming and shouting of a crowd of people around the car, and immediately thereafter they got out of the car to save their life. It is averred in the complaint that the driver had noticed that the red lights on the car dashboard flashed intermittently, as opposed to continuous flashing, which is an indication of a technical problem with the car and, therefore, he stopped the car immediately and got off to examine the cause of the intermittent flashing of the dashboard lights. When the driver attempted to open the bonnet, the bonnet was so hot that it burnt his fingers and palm and he saw heavy smoke emanating from underneath the bonnet from all sides. This ultimately resulted in burning of the entire car into ashes. THE complainant had also lost the baggage in the said fire as the entire baggage was totally burnt in the fire. It appears when this fact was brought to the notice of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, they replaced the car and they also paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 towards the loss of baggage suffered by the complainant. But the complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of damages for mental agony and torture alleging that the manufacturing defect in the car has made the complainant to suffer the mental agony, hardship and also loss to his property.

O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their version. According to them, the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver in not driving the car with due care after going through the Owners'' Manual furnished to the complainant. The further case of the O.Ps. is that they have supplied a new car in place of the car which was burnt and paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any further compensation from the O.Ps.

O.P. No. 3 is only a dealer of the car and O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are the manufacturers of the car. On the above said pleadings, the point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for compensation for mental agony and hardship.

AS the O.Ps. have replaced the car and also paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 towards the loss caused to the baggage, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation in so far as the car and the loss caused to the property is concerned. From the facts it is seen that when the car was almost near Chennai, the vehicle caught fire. The complainant has produced the photographs published in a Tamil Newspaper. From these photographs, it is seen that the entire car was burnt into ashes. The reason for this fire in the accident is to be explained by the O.Ps. According to the O.Ps, the driver who was driving the car ignored the warning lights on the car dashboard and he continued to drive the car and this resulted in the fire accident. In para 8 of the affidavit filed by O.P. No. 2, this is what has been stated: "Page Nos. 51 to 53 of the owners manual gives the details regarding driving with catalytic converter and avoiding parking of car on dry leaves or dry grass..." In the instant case, the vehicle was not being driven on dry leaves or dry grass and it was driven on a National Highway. Even assuming that there was a warning light on the car dashboard, there was no scope for the vehicle to caught fire to such extent which leads to burning of the entire vehicle into ashes, but for the fact that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. If there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, there was no reason for the O.Ps. to replace the car and pay damages of Rs. 2,50,000 towards the loss caused to the property belonging to the complainant. Therefore, the replacement of the car and paying a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation itself speaks of the fact that there was a manufacturing defect in the car. The complainant has also produced an Article published in a magazine called "Fortune" and "Jugular Vein" published by the "Times of India" and also a report published in "Economic Times" in its issue dated 13.12.2004. The complainant has also produced publications regarding the Ford Icon Cars in other papers. No doubt these paper publications are not admissible evidence but we can take notice of the fact that there are complaints regarding the manufacturing defect in the vehicle manufactured by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. Admittedly, the complainant and his wife were suddenly awakened by the screaming and shouting of a crowd around the car. Had there not been such screaming and shouting it is not known what would have been the fate of the complainant, his wife and the driver. The timely intervention of the public, in our view, has saved their lives. We are told that the driver who was driving the car died subsequently due to the shock, which he suffered.

TAKING all these facts into consideration, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for damages for mental shock, hardship and punitive damages from O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. As the complainant has already received the compensation for the loss of baggage and the O.Ps. have also replaced the car, we are of the view that awarding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation in favour of the complainant would meet the ends of justice.

IN the result, we pass the following order: (1) The complaint is allowed in part. (2) O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till realisation. (3) O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs. 10,000 to the complainant towards the cost of these proceedings.

Complaint partly allowed.