1. Consumer complaint alleging manufacturing defect in airbag system causing death in car accident. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2354
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member, Kiran Sibal, Member
Hyundai Motor India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jaspal Kaur Deol – Respondent
First Appeal No.981 of 2022
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Amit Gupta
For the Respondents: Sh. Sahil Abhi, Sh. Prince Goyal
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Amit Gupta
For the Respondents: Sh. Sahil Abhi, Sh. Prince Goyal
Non-deployment of airbags during a severe frontal collision, resulting in significant vehicle damage, constitutes a manufacturing defect under the principle of res ipsa loquitur, and such claims are maintainable before Consumer Commissions despite the existence of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 35(1) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Manufacturing defect in vehicle - Non-deployment of airbags during severe frontal collision - Whether consumer fora have jurisdiction in cases of motor accidents involving alleged manufacturing defects - Yes, Consumer Commissions have jurisdiction where the dispute pertains to the quality of the product sold by the sellers after receiving consideration from the consumer (Para 14).
(B) Cause of Action - Settlement of insurance claim does not preclude a subsequent claim for compensation against the manufacturer for manufacturing defects as they arise from different causes of action (Para 15).
(C) Airbag Deployment - Under the principle of res ipsa loquitur, if a vehicle sustains significant frontal damage (Total Loss) but airbags do not deploy, it reflects an in-build defect in the safety system, especially when corroborated by expert testimony and Supreme Court precedent (Para 16).
Facts of the case:
The complainants purchased a Hyundai Verna Fluidic car. On 24.12.2015, the vehicle met with a severe head-on collision with a tree, resulting in the death of the driver. Despite the vehicle being declared as 'Total Loss' with substantial frontal damage, the airbags did not deploy. The District Commission allowed the complaint and awarded Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the airbags should have deployed given the severity of the impact. The failure to do so constitutes a manufacturing defect. The dealer's liability was upheld as they failed to contest the original order or challenge the impugned order before the Commission.
Issues: Whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction over motor accident claims involving manufacturing defects and whether the non-deployment of airbags in a severe accident constitutes a deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur, ruling that significant frontal damage without airbag deployment is prima facie evidence of a manufacturing defect, and such issues fall under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act regardless of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- consumer law
- practice and procedure
-
torts
- negligence (Para 3)
Table of Contents
2. Jurisdiction under Motor Vehicles Act vs Consumer Protection Act; evidentiary burden to prove manufacturing defect. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. Principle of res ipsa loquitur applied; non-deployment of airbags in severe frontal collision indicates manufacturing defect. (Para 16 )
4. Consumer fora have jurisdiction over manufacturing defect complaints; separate cause of action from insurance claim. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. Appeal dismissed; District Commission order upheld; no merit found in appeal. (Para 18 )
6. Does the Consumer Protection Act provide jurisdiction over claims arising from motor vehicle accidents?
Yes, the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction as the dispute concerns the quality of goods sold, not merely a motor accident claim. (Para 14 )
7. Can a consumer maintain a manufacturing defect claim after settling an insurance claim for the same vehicle?
Yes, because the insurance claim and the manufacturing defect claim arise from separate causes of action. (Para 15 )
8. Can the principle of res ipsa loquitur be applied to prove a manufacturing defect in airbags?
Yes, when airbags fail to deploy in a severe frontal collision, the principle shifts the burden to the manufacturer to explain non-deployment. (Para 16 )
9. Is expert evidence always necessary to prove a manufacturing defect in a consumer complaint?
No, when the defect is evident from the nature of the accident and damage, expert evidence is not mandatory. (Para 16 )
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala, Camp Court at Ludhiana in RBT/CC/617/2016
KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 against the impugned order dated 16.06.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala, camp court at Ludhiana (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by respondents No.1 & 2/complainants against opposite parties (in short 'OPs'), under the Consumer Protection Act, was allowed while granting the following relief:-
"12. In view of above detailed discussion, we partly allow this complaint and direct the OPs either jointly or severally to pay Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainants on account of mental pain and agony suffered by them due to untimely death of Manjit Singh Deol in accident. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the awarded amount would carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of complaint till its realization."
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal, as mentioned in the complaint, are that the husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2; namely, Sh. Manjit Singh Deol had purchased a Hyundai Verna Fluidic car bearing registration No.PB-10-EV-8960 from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.10,65,399/-. The said vehicle was manufactured by OP No.1 and at the time of its sale, OP No.2 assured that the vehicle contains all safety systems to protect the life of the driver. Moreover, it is clearly stated in the owner's manual and service booklet of the vehicle that air bags have been duly fixed in the vehicle for safety of the driver and other occupants of the car. It was the duty of the OPs to check the car properly, particularly the safety measures i.e. air bags or any other manufacturing defect at the time of sale and subsequently when the car was sent to the authorized dealer at their service station i.e. OP No.3. The said vehicle was also got insured by the said Manjit Singh Deol from TATA AIG General Insurance company Ltd. vide policy No.015547013000. Unfortunately, on 24.12.2015 the vehicle in question met with an accident and the said Manjit Singh Deol, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, died on the spot due to suffering of multiple and grievous injuries. The claim lodged by the complainants under the insurance policy has been duly settled by the insurance company. The complainants further stated that the ignition of the car was on or in a start position as the car was in motion on the highway in speed and deceased Manjit Singh Deol was driving the car at moderate speed and wearing the seat belt. As such, all the essentials for operation of the air bag system as per the owner's manual and service booklet were duly complied with by him. However, the vehicle was having a manufacturing defect as the safety system i.e. air bags had not been installed properly and it did not deploy even in such a severe head on collision of the car with the tree, where the front portion of the car has totally been smashed. Even the surveyor appointed by the insurance company, who had inspected the damaged vehicle in the presence of engineers of OP No.3, has clearly stated that 'Air bag found intact as air bags did not deploy in the accident'. The complainants further stated that the deceased Manjit Singh Deol, died due to faulty and defective air bags system in the vehicle, which was a manufacturing defect. Had proper airbags were installed by OP No.1, the life of deceased would have been saved. The complainants have lost their beloved only on account of negligence and unfair trade
