Noting that exceeding the speed of 120 km per hour may give joy to the rider, but endangers public life and the safety of those on the road, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the plea of a Chandigarh resident who had sought refund for his car due to its high speed alarm that beeped every time the car crossed the speed of 80 km per hour.
The complainant, Vishal Chopra, had said that the sound creates “nuisance”. He had said that in May 2018, he had purchased Brezza Zdi+ car from a Maruti Suzuki dealer, Autopace Network, for Rs 9,76,715 and the time of demo or as per manual, it was not specified that the vehicle had a high speed alarm. However, in the fourth week of May 2018, when he was driving the vehicle on the highway from Chandigarh to Delhi, suddenly the alarm started beeping which caused nuisance to him. Chopra informed the dealer about it, who told Chopra that the alarm has been installed as per the government regulation, AIS 145, and as and when the speed exceeds 80 km/h, primary level warning with two beeps sound and when the speed exceeds 120 km per hour, the secondary level warning beeps continuously until the vehicle slows down to 118 km per hour.
Chopra, however, alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of Maruti Suzuki and the dealership, and filed a consumer complaint seeking Rs 15 lakh nearly, including refund for the car.
In its reply, Maruti Suzuki submitted that it is a safety feature for category M and N vehicles, and the additional safety feature is as per the mandate of provision.
The commission, after hearing the arguments, stated that the alarm was for the safety of the complainant as well as the other vehicles and pedestrians on the road. It alerts the driver that the vehicle has crossed such speed.
“Exceeding the speed of 120 km per hour may give joy to the rider, but it endangers the public life and the safety of those on road,” the commission said in the order.
“The OPs cannot change this safety feature which is as per mandate of the relevant rules. The life of the complainant as well as others is precious and as per wishes of the complainant, there cannot be any amendment to the rules and with his act he may put the lives of other human beings at risk,” said the commission.
The commission, thus, while dismissing the plea of Chopra, further said, “We also cannot lose sight of the judicial notice that more people die due to road accidents in India than because of diseases, and in majority of such cases, accidents happen due to over speed. The complainant wants to drive his vehicle rashly, exceeding the speed of 120 km per hour, without any warning alarm and thereby, put his life as well as that of others at risk. Such averments are not categorised under unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.”
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines