The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently dismissed a complaint alleging a manufacturing defect in a Jaguar Range Rover car after the driver’s airbag failed to deploy during an accident involving a nilgai (blue bull) near Greater Noida.
A Bench of Justice AP Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member) held that the complainants had failed to establish any defect in the vehicle’s airbag system and accepted the technical explanation placed on record by the manufacturer regarding the functioning of the airbag sensors.
"In the instant case the passenger seat airbag had opened and therefore it cannot be said that there was any inherent manufacturing defect in respect of sensors of the driver seat where the airbag did not open. On the other hand, had there been a manufacturing defect or any other defect the airbag on the passenger seat side would not have probably opened," observed the Court.
The complaint arose from an accident on December 11, 2013, when the Range Rover Autobiography collided with a nilgai that suddenly jumped onto the road in Greater Noida.
According to the complainants, although the collision caused significant damage to the vehicle’s front portion, the driver’s airbag did not deploy, while the passenger airbag deployed despite the passenger seat being unoccupied.
They alleged that this indicated a manufacturing defect in the vehicle’s safety system and sought relief including replacement of the vehicle and ₹5 crore as compensation for mental trauma and other damages.
Jaguar Land Rover contested the claim and relied on the analysis of crash data stored in the vehicle’s Restraint Control Module (RCM). The data examined by the module manufacturer Bosch indicated that the driver’s seatbelt was buckled while the passenger seatbelt was not fastened at the time of the crash.
Based on this analysis, the manufacturer explained that the airbag system operates using different deployment thresholds depending on seatbelt usage.
According to the technical explanation placed on record, the crash did not reach the higher threshold required for deployment of the driver airbag when the driver is wearing a seatbelt.
Whereas the passenger airbag deployed because the system applies a lower threshold where the passenger seatbelt is not buckled.
The Commission noted that this explanation was supported by the crash data retrieved from the vehicle and was not contradicted by any independent expert evidence.
It further observed that the complainants had not availed themselves of mechanisms available under consumer law to obtain independent technical testing or expert examination of the alleged defect.
The Commission also noted that the owner's manual did not explain the airbag deployment thresholds linked to seatbelt usage. However, it held that this omission by itself did not establish a manufacturing defect in the vehicle’s safety system.
Additionally, the Commission observed that the vehicle had been repaired through insurance and that the accident occurred after the expiry of the manufacturer’s warranty. It held that these circumstances further weakened the basis for holding the manufacturer liable for replacement or compensation.
Ultimately, the Commission held that the complainants had failed to establish any manufacturing defect or deficiency in service on the part of the manufacturer and dismissed the consumer complaint.
Advocates S Bhullar, Sarthak Aggarwal, Yashi Gupta, Shilvin Marandi and Mehar Kaur appeared for the complainants.
Jaguar Land Rover India Limited was represented by a team from Karanjawala & Co. comprising of advocates Seema Sundd, Ritu Raj Srivastava, Snehil Srivastav, Rahul Sharma, Ishan K Jha and Pravin Bahadur.
Advocate Chandan Malik represented the dealer.
[Read Order]