6 airbags, zero protection: Consumer court orders full refund for safety failure

“…the vehicle was suffering from a material defect…There is no force in the argument that the vehicle was not suffering from a manufacturing defect. The reliance of the counsel for the manufacturer on Owner Manual to the effect that the airbags on the driver side deploys only during significant frontal collisions and collisions that are up to 30 degrees from the left or right is without any support of convincing material,” the national consumer commission said on April 2.

The commission held that the case involved no jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference, reiterating the limited scope of its revisional powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Finding error in findings of the district and state consumer commission, the national consumer commission declined to interfere. (Image enhanced using AI)

NCDRC’s detailed findings on safety systems

The national consumer commission delivered an extensive analysis of vehicle safety mechanisms explaining that airbags are a critical component of a vehicle’s passive safety system, designed to deploy within milliseconds during collisions to reduce the risk of serious injury or death.

It highlighted that airbags, along with seatbelts, form the last line of defence in accidents and are integral to modern automotive safety design. The commission held that the fact that only two airbags deployed out of six was undisputed and such failure, in the context of a severe accident, itself establishes a manufacturing defect.

It also said that the expert evidence is not mandatory where the defect is apparent from the facts and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (speaks for itself)was correctly applied by the district and state consumer bodies. The bench also rejected the argument linking airbag deployment to seatbelt usage, clarifying that airbags and seatbelts are distinct systems and failure of one cannot be justified by the other.

The national consumer commission concluded that the orders of the lower forums were “well reasoned” and based on proper appreciation of facts and law. Accordingly, both revision petitions were dismissed as devoid of merit, and the refund and compensation awarded to the complainant were upheld.

Addressing the procedural objection under Section 13(1)(c), the commission held that laboratory testing is not required in every case, particularly where the defect is evident and undisputed. It further reiterated that its revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or material irregularities and does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence like an appellate court.

Finding no such error in the concurrent findings of the district consumer commission and state consumer commission, the national consumer commission declined to interfere.

Rs 10.42 lakh purchase turns into legal battle

The dispute traces back to July 1, 2015, when the complainant, one Yogesh Jain purchased a Ford EcoSport (optional variant) for Rs 10,42,776 through dealer A B Motors Private Limited in Amritsar. The vehicle was covered under a comprehensive manufacturer warranty valid until July 2, 2018, and was insured at the time.

However, within less than a year, on May 27, 2016, the vehicle met with a serious accident on the Pathankot-Amritsar Expressway.

According to the record, the car collided with a road divider, tumbled, and rolled over to the other side of the road, resulting in injuries to the driver’s head, neck, and arms. The incident exposed what would become the central issue of the case: despite being equipped with six airbags, only two airbags deployed during the crash. The front driver-side airbag and three airbags on the left side failed to open.

The complainant argued that this failure of critical safety systems pointed to inherent manufacturing defects and significantly increased the risk of fatal injuries.

State commission: failure ‘speaks for itself’

The Punjab State Consumer Commission, in its July 13, 2017 order, dismissed appeals filed by the manufacturer and dealer, fully endorsing the district commission’s reasoning. It rejected the argument that expert evidence was necessary to establish a defect, holding that the facts themselves were sufficient.

Invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the commission observed that the non-deployment of four airbags in a serious crash is an occurrence that “speaks for itself” and establishes defect without further technical proof.

The state commission also noted that the opposite parties had failed to rectify the defect despite having custody of the vehicle for months.

Manufacturer’s defence: No expert evidence, limited airbag function

Before the NCDRC, Ford India and the dealer mounted a detailed challenge to the concurrent findings. They argued that the complainant failed to produce expert opinion or laboratory testing to prove manufacturing defects.

Airbags are designed to deploy only under specific conditions, such as frontal impacts within certain angles, and not in all accidents like overturns. The lower forums failed to follow mandatory procedure under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, which requires testing of goods in defect cases.
The accident, not any defect, caused the damage and airbag behavior.

The manufacturer also emphasized that airbags are part of a supplemental restraint system (SRS), intended to reduce impact rather than eliminate injury entirely.

Dealer’s delay, manufacturer’s silence

Immediately after the accident, the vehicle was towed to the dealer’s workshop. The dealer assured the complainant that repairs, including rectification of airbag-related defects, would be completed within 15-20 days.

However, the vehicle remained in the dealer’s custody for nearly three months without resolution. Despite repeated follow-ups, the complainant was informed that efforts to rectify the defect were ongoing but unsuccessful.

Frustrated, Jain escalated the issue to the manufacturer on August 19, 2016, through a formal complaint. While the manufacturer acknowledged the issue and promised feedback, no concrete steps were taken to address the alleged defect or return the vehicle in a repaired condition.

Left with no alternative, the complainant approached the District Consumer Forum in Amritsar, seeking refund of Rs 10,42,776 (vehicle cost), Rs 5 lakh as compensation and litigation costs

District commission: ‘Major inherent defect’ established

In its order dated March 14, 2017, the district consumer commission allowed the complaint, holding that the failure of four out of six airbags during a major accident clearly indicated a “major inherent defect” in the vehicle.

The district commission noted that the manufacturer proceeded ex parte, the dealer failed to file a reply within the statutory period and the evidence produced by the complainant remained unrebutted.

The forum directed both the manufacturer and dealer jointly and severally to refund the vehicle cost, along with Rs 20,000 compensation and Rs 5,000 litigation expenses, with interest at 9 per cent per annum in case of delay.

Broader significance for consumer law, auto safety

The ruling carries significant implications for consumer protection and the automobile industry.
It reinforces that failures in critical safety systems like airbags will be strictly scrutinised and clarifies that obvious defects can be established without expert evidence in appropriate cases.

It underscores that manufacturers cannot evade liability by relying solely on technical arguments when core safety features fail. By affirming relief to the consumer after nearly a decade, the national consumer commission has sent a strong message on accountability in vehicle safety and the importance of effective after-sales service.