Rejecting a first appeal, the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) says the airbags in the car failed to deploy, not because of a manufacturing defect, but because the seat belt was not fastened by the consumer, as stated in the owner's manual provided by Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd.
In
an order last week, the NCDRC bench of Subhash Chandra (presiding member) and Dr Sadhna Shanker (member) says, "The appellant's case that the airbags failed to deploy due to a manufacturing defect in the vehicle has not been established through any expert opinion as required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. On the contrary, there is evidence by way of affidavit brought on record by Mercedes Benz that the seat belt had not been used, which has also not been controverted."
"The cause of the accident, as per the report of the police, was due to rash and negligent driving and therefore, the contention of the appellant that the airbags failed to deploy due to a manufacturing defect in the vehicle cannot be sustained," the bench says.
Hyderabad-based Mohammad Hyder Khan had filed the first appeal challenging an order issued by the Andhra Pradesh state consumer disputes redressal commission in favour of Mercedes Benz.
On 18 June 2008, Mr Khan bought a Mercedes Benz E280CDI car for Rs53 lakh from Adishwar Auto Diagnostics Pvt Ltd, an authorised dealer of the carmaker.
On 9 January 2010, the vehicle met with an accident when it hit the embankment on the right while swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle. The car suffered severe damage to the right-side fender and its entire front section was damaged along with engine parts. The front airbags did not deploy, and Mr Khan suffered injuries on the head, neck and face.
He sent the car to Adishwar Auto Diagnostics, which gave an estimated cost, including spare parts, of Rs22 lakh for repair.
On 20 January 2010, Mr Khan sent a legal notice to Mercedes Benz and its dealer alleging a 'manufacturing defect' in the car due to which airbags did not deploy despite a major collision.
After selling the car for Rs16.50 lakh, Mr Khan filed a complaint before the state commission seeking compensation of Rs35.55 lakh for reimbursement of loss and additional cost for purchase of a new vehicle, Rs50,000 for medical expenses, Rs15 lakh for mental agony and Rs10 lakh for general and special damages. The claim was subsequently revised to Rs25.50 lakh as the claim for Rs35.55 lakh relating to loss of the vehicle was deleted on 9 November 2012.
On 19 December 2012, the state commission dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the dismissal, Mr Khan filed his first appeal before the NCDRC. He argued that the non-deployment of airbags was a manufacturing defect, in addition to defects with the wipers and steering wheel which occurred soon after the vehicle was purchased.
The counsel for Mercedes Benz contended that after the repairs in August 2009, the car had been driven for nearly 3,000km without complaints or defects being reported. It averred that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving as per the first information report (FIR) and the magistrate's report and not due to any defect in the steering wheel.
Further, he submitted that the airbags did not deploy since the seat belt was not worn, which was required as the primary restraint mechanism per the owner's manual. "...also the manual made it clear that the electronic triggering device (ETR) would have triggered at the time of the accident resulting in tightening of the seat belt to provide additional protection to the passenger's head at the moment of the accident, which failed to happen as the seat belt had not been worn."
The NCDRC bench referred to observations recorded by the state commission in its order. The state commission noted that Mr Khan ought to have waited for an inspection of the vehicle before selling it to a third party, which denied Mercedez Benz the opportunity to inspect the vehicle.
"From the foregoing, it is manifest that the impugned order is well reasoned and detailed. As per the owner's manual, the seat belt is required to be fastened for the air bags to deploy in case of an accident. As per the affidavit of the service manager of Adishwar Auto Diagnostics, the belt was not fastened. This evidence is not controverted," the bench said, while dismissing the appeal filed by Mr Khan.
(First Appeal No10 of 2013 Date: 20 September 2024)
