'Manufacturing Defect' : Consumer Forum Directs Tata Motors To Refund ₹16.95 Lakh To Owner Of Nexon EV Which Caught Fire
A District Consumer Forum has held Tata Motors liable for the manufacturing defect in a Tata Nexon Electric Vehicle that caught fire in Hyderabad a year after its purchase.The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad directed Tata Motors to refund Rs 16.95 lakh (cost of the vehicle) plus 9 % interest from 29-09-2023 (date of filing complaint) to the owner of the...
A District Consumer Forum has held Tata Motors liable for the manufacturing defect in a Tata Nexon Electric Vehicle that caught fire in Hyderabad a year after its purchase.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad directed Tata Motors to refund Rs 16.95 lakh (cost of the vehicle) plus 9 % interest from 29-09-2023 (date of filing complaint) to the owner of the Nexon EV.
Complainant's Case :
The complainant, Jonathan Brainard, purchased the vehicle(EV, variant XZ+) on 03.05.2022 for Rs. 16,95,000/. He stated that within 11 months of taking delivery of the vehicle, the vehicle started showing problems insofar that the car would not run even with 18% charge in the battery and would refuse to engage the normal drive mode. On 11-04-2023, the authorised service centre told him that the HV (High Voltage) battery pack itself had depleted and needed to be replaced. The car remained in the service centre for over a month. On 23.05.2023, the car was returned to the complainant with a refurbished HV battery pack and not a new battery pack.
On 01-06-2023, at around 6 pm, as the complainant was driving, he heard a loud exploding sound from somewhere under his car and the car lost control. In a panic, the complainant tried to steer the car but he ended up hitting a stationed motorcyclist on the side of the road and the car slammed into a tree.
The motorcycle rider was badly injured. The complainant noticed that a fire had started in the car and was spreading rapidly. He was unable to open any of the doors other than the driver door and when he tried to push the door unlock button on the dashboard, it wasn't functioning. As the fire gained intensity, the complainant smashed the rear boot window with the help of pedestrians and managed to recover his work laptop and some other valuables from the car. The complainant stated that had his wife and baby child been inside the car, it would have been fatal.
The fire service attendance certificate dated 01-06-2023 recorded that the cause of fire was of "electric origin".
Tata Motors' arguments :
Tata Motors denied the allegations saying that the fire might have been caused by the external crash and claimed that there was no fault in the battery pack which was replaced. The reason why tailgate/rear door did not open, may be due to the non-function of the lock system due to damage in the wiring following the fire. The company further stated that the vehicle had run for over 24,000 kilometers which showed that the car was completely roadworthy.
The speed of the vehicle at the time was found to have reduced from 57.6 KMP 36.45 KMPH. Based on the steering angle and direction just before the accident, it may be attributed that due to some driving condition, steering was rotated in anticlockwise direction resulting in sudden movement of the vehicle towards the left side and collision. At this point, accelerator pedal movement was also observed (speed increased from 36.45 KMPH to 38.36 KMPH) indicating that instead of the brake, the accelerator pedal was pressed. There was no brake pedal movement observed in the vehicle in the last 10 seconds of collision. Crash alert was raised immediately after the impact.
Commission's findings
The Commission, after examining the evidence on record, found that the fire occurred due to a manufacturing defect.
"In the instance case, the Complainant has purchased the car believing the advertisements of the Opposite Parties and he has given priority for safety, convenience, comfort and reliability features including their much-coveted Global New Car Assessment programme (Global NCAP) rating of 5 stars and also believed that the vehicle is very much comfortable for him and his family. But fire accident occurred suddenly and the State Fire Service Department stated the cause of the fire is “Electric origin”. The videos and photos submitted by the Complainant proved that the motorcycle was not at all on fire while the car was burning. The photos and videos clearly establish that the fire started from the engine of the car only," the Commission noted.
"Basing on the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, we are under the considered opinion that there is manufacturing defect in the said car and the acts of Opposite Parties clearly establishes deficiency of services and unfair trade practices upon their part. Hence, the Opposite Parties are liable to refund the cost of the car, compensation and costs of the Complaint," it concluded.
In the absence of any other probable cause of fire, it has to be attributed to a manufacturing defect in the car, applying the principle of “res-ipsa loquitur” means “thing speak for itself”.
The Commission held Tata Motors, Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles, M/s. Venkataramana Motors(dealer) and M/s.Malik Cars Pvt. Ltd(service centre) jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.16, 95,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Only) i.e. the costs of vehicle, along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 29-09-2023, till the date of realization to the complainant.
The Commission further directed them to pay Rs 2.5 lakh as compensation to the injured motorist.
Appearances: M/s. Ranjan Matthew Advocate for the complainant
M/s. M.V.R. Suresh & Associates Advocate, appearing for the opposite parties.no. 1 and 2(Tata Motors), Sri M. Ravi Kiran Reddy, Advocate appearing for opposite party No. 4
Case : Jonathan Brainard v. Tata Motors Ltd. CONSUMER CASE NO.189/2023, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – II, HYDERABAD