Explosion Of Falcon E-Scooter, Manufacturer And Dealer Liable Under 'Product Liability' Laws, Medak District Commission Orders Rs. 10 Lakh Compensation

Brief Facts:

Mrs. Kandi Shailaza (“Complainant No. 1”) purchased an Electric Scooter (Falcon) from M/s SAN Motors, Hyderabad (“Dealer”) on 07-04-2021. The scooter was being used by Ms. Harshita Gujjeti (“Complainant No. 2”). The Complainants claimed that they charged the e-scooter regularly according to the instructions issued by Benling India Energy and Technology Pvt. Ltd. (“Manufacturer”). The scooter was not driven during rain or in water-clogged areas and other necessary precautions were undertaken.

On 27-06-2023, a catastrophic event occurred when the scooter was put on charging. It exploded and caught fire. The ensuing fire engulfed adjacent vehicles, causing extensive damage to property and severe injuries to family members. The aftermath of the explosion left the Complainants and their tenants traumatized. The smoke from the incident resulted in breathing difficulty, necessitating extensive cleaning of the affected premises. The incident inflicted financial losses, hindering regular work, and causing physical injuries to family members of the Complainants.

The Complainants promptly notified the Dealer about the incident via email. Subsequent attempts to reach an amicable resolution with the Dealer and the Manufacturer proved futile. Even after issuing legal notices to both, the Complainants did not receive any reply. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainants filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak, Telangana (“District Commission”). The Dealer and the Manufacturer failed to appear before the District Commission. Therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission acknowledged that a product must meet consumer expectations, emphasizing the joint responsibility of manufacturers and dealers to ensure product safety and quality according to their specifications. It observed that the causes of an e-vehicle battery explosion could be varied, placing the responsibility on the manufacturer to investigate and take corrective actions. The District Commission found that the Manufacturer was negligent in addressing the issue, as they neither responded to the notice nor appeared for the proceedings.

Highlighting the product liability law, the District Commission emphasized that consumers have legal recourse for injuries caused by defective products, allowing them to directly approach the Manufacturer and the Dealer. It stressed the strict nature of product liability, not requiring proof of actual negligence.

Referring to sections 84 to 86 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the District Commission outlined the avenues for consumers to claim remedies against product manufacturers for unreasonably dangerous and defective goods likely to jeopardize user safety.

Based on the presented evidence, the District Commission concluded that the Complainants were entitled to damages not only for the defective e-vehicle and services but also under strict product liability. Consequently, the District Commission directed the Manufacturer and the Dealer to compensate the Complainants jointly and severally for the e-vehicle's cost with 9.5% depreciation per year or replace the e-vehicle. Additionally, it directed a payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- as damages for the defective e-vehicle and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.