Date of filing : 24.05.2016.

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present:Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH ... PRESIDENT C.C. No.242 of 2017 Orders, dt: 31.12.2025 M.G.G. Trading Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its M.D. – G.Behin, No.12/1, Sripururam, Tirunelveli. ... Complainant vs.

1.M/s.Mercedes Benz Ind. Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its M.D., E-3, MIDC, Chakan, Phase-III, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighige, Talkhed, Pune-410501.

2. Sundaram Motors (Division of TVS & Sons Ltd.), Represented by its Managing Director, No.370, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore - 641 043. ... Opposite Parties.

For Complainant : Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar For OP No1 : M/s. J.Sagar Asso.

For OP No.2 : M/s.Ramasubramaniam Asso.

This Consumer Complaint came up for final hearing on 05.02.2024 and after hearing the arguments of the counsels appearing for the parties and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. (President)

Alleging that the vehicle manufactured by the 1st OP herein/Mercedes Benz India Ltd. and sold to him by the 2^nd OP/Sundaram Motors had a manufacturing defect inasmuch as the airbags represented to have been installed therein failed to deploy upon the occurrence of accident, thereby exposing him to a grave and imminent risk to his safety & life and fundamentally undermining the representations, assurances and guarantees held out by the OPs regarding the vehicle’s claimed superior safety architecture, particularly in relation to the airbag system, and further alleging specifically that the 2nd OP, despite having assured him of procuring a comprehensive and advantageous insurance cover under Platinum Category, secured only a comparatively inferior policy of ordinary nature to his detriment, the complainant has instituted the present proceedings contending that the acts and omissions of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and constitute unfair trade practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that, on

31.05.2014, he purchased a Mercedes Benz-E250CDI for a consideration of Rs.46 lakh from the 2nd OP, who is the authorised dealer of motor vehicles manufactured by the 1st OP; that the said vehicle, bearing temporary Registration No.TN-38 BXT1073 & covered by insurance from Bajaj Allianz with validity between 21.06.2014 and 26.06.2015, was delivered to him on 02.07.2014 from the showroom of the 2nd OP; that, on 03.07.2014, while the complainant was driving the subject car on the National Highway from Tuticorin to Tirunelveli, it met with a serious accident involving a container lorry which was braked suddenly, causing the car to skid and collide with the rear portion of the lorry, as a result of which, the entire front portion of the car was completely damaged, whereupon, a complaint was duly lodged with the police, resulting in issuance of an accident certificate recording the occurrence; that, although the occupants of the car narrowly escaped with their lives, the complainant was shocked to discover that none of the airbags in the vehicle was deployed, despite the severity of the impact and the extensive damage to the front portion of the car; that the non-deployment of airbags is particularly alarming, given that the vehicle was purchased primarily on the strength of the safety features assured by the 1st OP and, had the complainant been aware that the vehicle was manufactured in such a defective manner, wherein the airbags failed to function and serve their intended purpose, he would never have purchased the car; that the 1st OP has consistently projected the said model as one of the safest vehicles, claiming that it is equipped with as many as twelve airbags to ensure the safety of the driver and passengers, however, the photographs taken immediately after the accident clearly demonstrate that none of the airbags was activated, notwithstanding the high veloci