National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While considering the instant appeal challenging Andhra Pradesh SCDRC decision dismissing the appellant’s complaint regarding manufacturing defect pertaining to air bags in his Mercedes-Benz car; the Bench of Subash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Dr Sadhna Shanker (Member), upheld the decision of the SCDRC stating that the order was well reasoned and detailed. The NCDRC observed that the appellant’s claim regarding non-deployment of air bags due to manufacturing defect, was not well established through any Expert Opinion.
In 2008, the appellant had purchased a Mercedes-Benz manufactured by Respondent 1 through Respondent 2 i.e., the car dealer for a consideration of Rs. 53 Lakhs. In 2009, the car’s steering wheel and wipers were replaced.
In January 2010, the vehicle met with an accident when it hit an embankment in an attempt to avoid an on-coming vehicle. The car was damaged and the air-bags did not deploy, as result of which the appellant suffered injuries on the head, neck and face. The damaged car was sent to the dealer for repairs where the estimated costs came to be around Rs 22 Lakhs.
The appellant demanded reply from the Respondents for the reasons of non-deployment of air bags and upon receiving no response, he sent a legal notice to the Respondents alleging manufacturing defect due which the air bags did not deploy. The appellant filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation of approximately Ra 30.5 Lakhs, which was subsequently revised to Rs 25.5 Lakhs.
Besides raising arguments about manufacturing defect, the appellant also argued that the airbags were dislodged when the steering wheel of the car was replaced.
Per contra, the Respondents contended that the airbags did not deploy because the appeallant did not follow the Owner’s Manual and did not wear the seat belt which acts as a primary restraint mechanism.
Commission’s Assessment:
Perusing the matter, the NCDRC took note of the impugned order passed by the SCDRC which stated that no complaint vis-a-vis defect or performance issues had been raised by the appellant even after driving the vehicle for 3000 Kms. till the date of the accident. The NCDRC noted that the SCDRC had pointed out that Surveyor’s Report was not brought on record as well.
The NCDRC pointed out that the impugned order was well reasoned and detailed. The appellant’s case had not been well established due to lack of Expert Opinion under S. 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Furthermore, evidence presented by the Respondents regarding the non-use of seat belts was not controverted. Furthermore, as per Police Report, the cause of the accident was rash negligent driving.
Hence, the NCDRC was of the view that the instant appeal had failed and the impugned order of the SCDRC did not merit interference.
[Mohd. Hyder Khan v. Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., First Appeal No. 10 of 2013, decided on 20-9-2024]
Order by Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For appellant: Advocates D. Abhinav Rao and Devapita Das
For respondent: Advocates Sidharth Sethi and Avinash Das (R1) and Advocate KS Rama Rao (R2)
