Non-deployment of safety airbags in a vehicle does not per se constitute a manufacturing defect; the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish through expert technical evidence that the safety mechanism was expected to deploy under the specific impact conditions.

This Complaint came up for final hearing on 31.08.2023 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels 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 a service deficiency on the part of the Car Manufacturer and Dealer viz., OP Nos.1 to 3, that the vehicle sold to them viz., Skoda Car - Super Elegance Model bearing Registration No.TN 07 – AW 6464, turned out to be inherently defective owing to failure of the airbags to deploy during an accident reportedly encountered, the complainants seek either replacement of the vehicle or reimbursement of Rs.24 lakh towards the cost of the car, Rs.3,50,000/- towards expenses incurred for alternative conveyance & travel, Rs.15,28,176/- towards instalments & interest paid to date and Rs.10 lakh for mental agony, loss & hardship allegedly suffered as a consequence of the said OPs’ inaction and deficient service.

2. The case of the complainants, as pleaded by them, is given in brief thus:-

The 2nd complainant/Company purchased the car in question on 25.07.2005 for a consideration of Rs.22,38,226/- from the 3rd OP/Dealer, and delivery was effected on the same date. Though the vehicle was registered in the name of the Company, it was acquired for the official and personal use of the first complainant, who is its Director and therefore, both are together prosecuting the present complaint. On 27.08.2006, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in substantial damage to the front left portion and, despite the severity of the impact, none of the six airbags deployed, contrary to the safety representations made by the manufacturer at the time of sale. Although the occupants escaped injury or hurt only by providence, such failure of the airbag system establishes a serious manufacturing and technical defect in the vehicle, which was immediately shifted to the workshop of the 3rd OP, and the 4th OP–Insurance Company was informed. While an estimate, dated 09.09.2006 was furnished regarding cost of repairs, during assessment, the complainants came to know that the left-side chassis had been deformed and required replacement. Such structural damage disproportionate to the ordinary frontal accident only indicates inherent structural weakness existing at the time of delivery. Although the tentative estimate was approved, particularly as the insurer had agreed to reimburse the repair costs, they subsequently sought replacement of the vehicle on the ground of manufacturing defect and failure of the safety system. The vehicle remained in the workshop for an inordinate period due to non-availability of spare parts and lack of coordination between manufacturer and dealer. The 3rd OP insisted upon written confirmation to proceed with repairs and demanded an undertaking not to pursue legal remedies as a condition for delivery, which is nothing but a coercive measure. Repeated representations were made, culminating in a legal notice dated 10.01.2007 seeking replacement; however, the OPs denied liability by their replies. The vehicle was purchased through finance and monthly instalments of approximately Rs.70,000/- have been paid without being able to use the car, besides incurring expenditure on alternative transportation. Hence, the present complaint, seeking the relief as aforementioned.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd OP on their own behalf and on behalf of OP Nos.1 and 2, it is,