1

BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. ______/2025

In the matter of:

General Motors India Private Limited Petitioner

Versus
Vivek Punvani & Others Respondents

REVISION PETITION AGAINST ORDER DATED

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 PASSED IN FA/2007/1036 BY THE
HONOURABLE UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION.

Most respectfully sheweth:

1. That the present revision petition is being filed against

order dated November 21, 2024 passed by the Honourable Uttar
Pradesh State Consumer Commission in FA/2007/1036 titled as
“General Motors India Private Limited versus Vivek Punvani &
Others” by which replacement of the vehicle by a new vehicle
has been directed along with payment of compensation of INR
1,10,000 on grounds of medical expenses and physical and
mental agony. A copy of the impugned order is attached herewith
marked as annexure RP/A.
 2

2. That it is respectfully stated that the vehicle was purchased

in July 2003. The vehicle was equipped with supplemental
restraint system (SRS) airbags on the driver side.

On July 10, 2005, the vehicle while travelling from Nainital to

Lucknow, while being driven by the complainant-respondent
number one, met with an accident with a cycle in which the
cyclist died. The complainant-respondent number one alleged
that the airbag on his side did not open as supposed and filed a
complaint on that basis before the Honourable District Forum.
The Honourable District Forum issue directions to the effect as
stated in paragraph 1 above. These directions have been upheld
by the above-captioned order-judgement of the honourable state
commission (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order-
judgement”)

3. That it is respectfully stated that as per the replication filed

by the complainant-respondent number one itself which is further
attached as annexure RP/B; it may kindly be seen that the
description of the airbags in question as given in the owner’s
manual states the following.

“ How air bags work

Air bags are designed to keep your head, neck and chest from
slamming into the instrument panel, steering wheel or wind
shield in a front-end crash. They are not designed to inflate in
rear-end or roll crashes or in most side impact crashes. Your air
bags are designed to deploy in crashes that are equivalent to, or
 3

exceed the force of a vehicle travelling at the speed of 14.5 - 23

km/h crashing into a solid immovable wall.”

4. That aggrieved by the impugned order-judgement, the

present revision petition is being filed, amongst others, on the
grounds as hereinbelow submitted.

GROUNDS

A. That it is most respectfully submitted that the adverse

finding in the impugned order-judgement finds no support from
the material on record and therefore, it is respectfully submitted,
a finding based on “no evidence” within the meaning and
definition of the same in law well settled in such respect and
therefore an error of jurisdiction within the classical definition of
error of jurisdiction.

The unequivocal case as per the material on record is that the

impact of the collision of the vehicle has to be frontal in
substance in order to activate the air bags. In the present case, as
per the material on record, it is an undisputed fact, as may be
seen from the order of the Honourable District Forum at its first
line on its third last page, that the impact of the vehicle on the
cycle/cyclist was from the left front wheel which made the
impact in substance not from the front but from the side. The
order of the Honourable District Forum is attached herewith
marked as annexure RP/C.
 4

B. That most respectfully, without prejudice to any other

submission, it is submitted that the vehicle had been purchased in
the year 2003 and the impugned order-judgement has been
passed in the year 2024. The vehicle has been therefore in use for
a good number of years. On account of such admitted and
undisputed use of the vehicle for a large number of years, the
depreciation arising in the value of the vehicle had to be
necessarily adjusted in the final order-judgement pronounced.

If such undisputed depreciation arising in the value of the vehicle

is factored in; it is most respectfully submitted that the very value
of the vehicle for the purpose of any final order-judgement
comes to nil given the large number of years for which the
vehicle has been indisputably in use. By not taking into account
and by failing to factor in the depreciation arising as aforesaid
submitted; the impugned order-judgement, it is most respectfully
submitted, has fallen into a serious error of law rendering serious
injustice arising on account thereof so far as the final order-
judgement is concerned.

C. That it is most respectfully submitted that the law is now

well settled that as a general rule, any order directing
replacement of the vehicle by a new vehicle is required to be
supported by an appropriate expert examination.

In the present case, given the technical nature of the issue at

hand; it was imperative to have an expert report from such as an
automobile engineer or even a mechanical engineer on whether
 5

given that the impact was from the front left wheel of the vehicle;
the same could be said to be an impact mainly frontal or mainly
from the side in order to pass a fair and just opinion on whether
the air bags were required to get activated in the present case or
not.

To respectfully reiterate, in the facts and circumstances of the

matter the final order-judgement to the extent that it has directed
a replacement by a new vehicle was necessarily required to be
supported by an appropriate expert report – all the more so in the
facts and circumstances of the matter – and the absence of the
same constitutes a serious error of law and travesty of justice and
fair play.

D. That it is most respectfully submitted that the

compensation granted by the final order-judgement with respect
to neurological/brain injury alleged by the complainant is based
on no evidence.

It is respectfully submitted that any neurological/brain damage

resulting out of any car accident cannot be treated merely by two
or three capsules, one of which being becosule capsules. In the
present case, all the complainant had presented as supporting
material regarding his allegation of serious neurological/brain
injury suffered in the accident met by the vehicle which he was
driving – in which the vehicle hit a cycle killing the cyclist – was
a short prescription listing two or three capsules, one of which, as
stated, stood to be becosule capsules.
 6

Such single prescription of two or three capsules one of which

stands to be becosule capsule cannot be taken as any worthwhile
evidence or supporting material so far as the allegation of the
complainant of having suffered serious neurological/brain injury
in the accident is concerned. Most respectfully therefore it is
reiterated that the grant of compensation by the impugned order-
judgement for brain/neurological injury is based on “no
evidence” within the meaning and definition of the same. A copy
of the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent number one
is further attached herewith marked as annexure RP/D.

E. That without prejudice to any other submission, it is

respectfully submitted that even assuming for the sake of
discussion but denying the same that the air bags suffered from
some defect or deficiency; replacement of the entire vehicle on
account thereof, it is respectfully submitted, is an error of law.

The law is well settled that if any part or component of the

vehicle is found to be suffering from any defect or deficiency but
is capable of replacement; then the replacement of the entire
vehicle, as a matter of law, is incorrect.

In the present case, even assuming that the impugned order-

judgement was of the view that the ear bags suffered from some
defect or deficiency; then what was required was to direct
replacement of the said airbags by the entire mechanism of new
and properly working airbags along with reasonable monetary
compensation, if any, in the facts and circumstances. But instead
directing replacement of the entire vehicle by a new vehicle, it is
 7

respectfully submitted, contravenes the law well settled in such

regard.

F. That it is most respectfully submitted that even otherwise

the adverse finding of the impugned order-judgement is perverse
to the material on record within the meaning and definition of the
same in law. The matter was required to be decided on the
principle of balance of probability.

It is well known and which could have been confirmed by an

expert report from appropriate quarters such as an automobile
engineer or a mechanical engineer that in case of a frontal impact
of a vehicle of the size and weight as in the present case
travelling at some speed; the cyclist on meeting a frontal
collision with the vehicle would have been flung up in the air
and/or thrown some distance, whereas the undisputed facts and
circumstances in the present case of the cycle being knocked
down by the front left wheel of the vehicle in all probability
makes out a case of the vehicle hitting the cycle from the rear
through its left front wheel and then the said wheel running over
the cycle and the cyclist.

As respectfully submitted, from the extracts of the owner’s

manual referred to in annexure RP/B, rear-end impacts are not
covered by the air bags.

Further, such a case of the cyclist being knocked down from the
rear by the left front wheel of the vehicle and then being run over
by the wheel would not constitute a collision as required to
 8

trigger the opening of the air bags but would simply be a matter
of knocking down the cycle from behind through the front left
side wheel and then running over the cyclist.

Most respectfully therefore not only in the facts and

circumstances of the matter the finding of a head-on collision is
perverse to the material on record; but, also, it is respectfully
submitted the nature and manner of the accident taking place
entirely through the left front wheel of the vehicle necessitated
even otherwise an expert report from appropriate quarters such as
an automobile engineer or a mechanical engineer to decide
whether the accident could be said to be a head-on collision as
would activate the airbags or would be in knocking down of the
cycle and the cyclist by the vehicle from behind through its front
left wheel and therefore not a frontal head-on collision required
to activate the air bags.

G. That it is most respectfully submitted, without prejudice to

any other submission, that it had been submitted before the
Honourable State Consumer Commission that in any case since
the appellant had ceased to manufacture vehicles in India post
December 2017, the impugned order-judgement required
modification by substituting replacement by a new vehicle by a
refund of the price of the vehicle

H. That most respectfully the appellant craves leave of any

other ground as this honourable commission may find apt and
appropriate to apply in the facts and circumstances of the matter.
 9

5. That it is respectfully submitted that the present revision

petition has been filed within the limitation prescribed.

6. That it is respectfully submitted that no application or any

other proceeding has been filed in any other court or forum
seeking the same relief as sought herein.

7. The authorisation to file the present revision petition on

behalf of the petitioner company is further attached herewith
marked as annexure RP/E.

PRAYER

In the facts and circumstances, this honourable commission may

be graciously pleased to:

a). set aside the order dated November 21, 2024 passed by the
Honourable Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission in
FA/2007/1036 titled as “General Motors India Private Limited
versus Vivek Punvani & Others”,

b). stay, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the

impugned order dated November 21, 2024 passed by the
 10

Honourable Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission in

FA/2007/1036 titled as “General Motors India Private Limited
versus Vivek Punvani & Others”.

c). direct that no execution petition shall be filed against the

petitioner herein, during the pendency of the present proceedings,
arising out of order dated November 21, 2024 passed by the
Honourable Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission in
FA/2007/1036 titled as “General Motors India Private Limited
Others versus Vivek Punvani & Others”,

d). pass any other order as is deemed apt and appropriate.

IT IS PRAYED ACCORDINGLY

Place:
Date:
Petitioner

Through
Sanjay Kumar Singh/ Himanshu Sharma
(Advocates)
543, Windsor Greens, Plot Number F 28
Sector 50, Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh
Mobile: 9818842877/
 11

BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. ______/2025

In the matter of:

General Motors India Private Limited Petitioner

Versus
Vivek Punvani & Others Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, _______________, working as ______________________

with General Motors India Private Limited with its address at
WeWork, BlueOneSquare, Office Nos. 4-109B, 4-110, 4-103,
246, Phase IV, Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, Haryana – 122016,
presently in Delhi, hereby solemnly affirm and depose as under:

1. That I am well conversant with the facts of the matter and

therefore competent to file the present petition which has been
drafted by counsel under my instructions.

2. That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 7 including grounds

A to H in paragraph 4 thereof of the present petition are true and
correct as derived from the records of the matter and personal
knowledge and belief besides legal advice received and held to
be correct. No part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom. The last paragraph is the prayer clause.
 12

Deponent

VERIFICATION

Verified at _________ on this _______________ day of January,

2025 that the contents of paragraph 1 and 2 of the above affidavit
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. No
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.

Deponent