Engine Failure Due To Driver Negligence, Not Manufacturing Defect; Karnataka State Consumer Commission Allows Honda Cars India’s Appeal
Pranav B Prem
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has allowed the appeals filed by Honda Cars India Ltd. and Peninsula Honda, setting aside the order of the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had held them liable for engine failure in a Honda Amaze car. The State Commission held that the damage suffered by the vehicle was a consequential loss arising out of negligent driving and improper maintenance, and not due to any inherent manufacturing defect. The State Commission comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Divyashree M. (Member) was considering two appeals filed by the manufacturer and the dealer challenging the District Commission’s order dated August 11, 2021.
The complainant had purchased a Honda Amaze car from Peninsula Honda on March 23, 2016 for a consideration of ₹8,20,000. The vehicle was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from March 23, 2016 to March 22, 2017 on payment of a premium of ₹23,748. On October 15, 2016, while the car was being driven by the complainant’s brother near Kapu, Udupi, the temperature gauge indicated overheating and the vehicle slowed down before breaking down. The car was towed to the service centre of Shama Honda, where the complainant was informed that there was a major engine failure.
As the vehicle was not repaired even after about 15 days, it was subsequently towed to Mangaluru and repaired by Peninsula Honda, which raised a bill of ₹3,06,012 that was paid by the complainant. When the complainant approached the insurer for reimbursement, the insurance claim was repudiated on the ground that the damage was a consequential loss arising out of mechanical breakdown, wear and tear, and negligence, which were excluded under the policy.
Alleging that the engine failure was due to a manufacturing defect and deficiency in service, the complainant approached the District Commission. The District Commission dismissed the complaint against the insurer and the service centre but allowed it against the manufacturer and the dealer, directing them to pay ₹2,65,550 with interest, along with amounts towards towing charges and compensation. Aggrieved by this finding, Honda Cars India Ltd. and Peninsula Honda filed appeals before the State Commission.
Before the State Commission, Honda Cars India Ltd. contended that the car had been functioning properly for about seven months and had covered nearly 10,000 kilometres, which itself ruled out any inherent manufacturing defect. It was argued that the complainant had not maintained the vehicle in accordance with the owner’s manual and service schedule, and that the damage was purely a consequential loss caused by negligent handling of the vehicle.
Peninsula Honda submitted that the complainant himself had admitted that the radiator cap had come off while the vehicle was in motion and that the car continued to be driven despite overheating. Relying on the complainant’s statement made in the insurance claim form, it was argued that driving the vehicle without a radiator cap resulted in severe overheating and engine failure, and therefore the loss was attributable to driver negligence and not to any defect in the vehicle.
The insurer supported the repudiation of the claim, contending that the damage was a consequential loss due to negligence and was expressly excluded under the insurance policy, and hence there was no deficiency in service on its part.
After examining the records, the State Commission observed that the vehicle had run for about seven months without any complaint and that no allegation of defect was raised during this period. The Commission placed reliance on the complainant’s own statement in the claim form, wherein it was admitted that “the radiator cap came out which my brother had not noticed and he ran the car without the radiator cap.” The Commission held that this admission clearly established that the damage occurred due to negligent driving.
The Commission further noted that no expert or technical evidence had been produced by the complainant to establish the existence of a manufacturing defect. It also found that the vehicle was not brought for regular maintenance as prescribed in the owner’s manual. In the absence of any proof of manufacturing defect or deficiency in service, the Commission held that the findings of the District Commission were unsustainable.
Holding that the engine failure was the result of driver negligence and improper maintenance, the State Commission concluded that the insurer had rightly repudiated the claim and that no liability could be fastened on the manufacturer or the dealer. Terming the District Commission’s order as perverse and illegal, the State Commission allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order insofar as it fastened liability on Honda Cars India Ltd. and Peninsula Honda, and dismissed the consumer complaint against them.
Cause Title: Honda Cars India Ltd vs Prathap.M
Case No: SC/29/A/825 & 857/2021
Coram: Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) , Divyashree M. (Member)
