Consumer forum dismisses complaint against Mercedes-Benz over non-deployment of airbags in under-ride collision

The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a complaint against Mercedes-Benz India and one of its dealer alleging a manufacturing defect after airbags in a luxury car failed to deploy during a road accident. [MGG Trading Pvt Ltd v. Mercedes-Benz India Pvt Ltd & Anr.]

The Commission held that the complainant had failed to establish any defect in the vehicle. It accepted the manufacturer’s explanation that the accident was an under-ride collision in which the car slid partly beneath the rear of a container lorry due to the height difference between the two vehicles due to which the airbag sensors were not triggered.

A coram of Justice R Subbiah (President) observed that the technical material placed on record by the manufacturer adequately explained the non-deployment of airbags and remained unrebutted by independent expert evidence.

“Evidence adduced by the manufacturer including detailed engineering assessments in the form of a technical report provides a coherent, scientifically substantiated rationale for the non-deployment of airbags explaining that the conditions requisite for actuation were not met and such evidence, un-rebutted by independent expert evaluation or scientific analysis, remains determinative,” said the Commission.

The complainant had purchased a Mercedes-Benz E250 CDI in July 2014 for about ₹46 lakh. According to the complaint, a day after taking delivery of the car, the vehicle was being driven from Tuticorin to Tirunelveli when it collided with the rear of a container lorry that had allegedly braked suddenly on the highway.

The impact caused extensive damage to the front portion of the car, which was later declared a total loss by the insurer.

The complainant alleged that despite the severity of the collision, none of the airbags deployed. He claimed this indicated either a manufacturing defect or the absence of properly installed airbags in the vehicle and sought compensation of ₹75 lakh along with damages for mental agony and financial loss.

Mercedes-Benz India and the dealer relied on a technical inspection report which concluded that the airbags did not deploy because the specific conditions required to trigger them were not met.

They contended that since it was an under-ride collision in which the smaller vehicle slides beneath the rear of the larger vehicle, the impact occurred mainly in the upper and softer portions of the car’s front structure and did not strike the rigid chassis members or longitudinal structural components that trigger the airbag sensors. 

Since the required deceleration threshold was not reached, the conditions necessary for airbag deployment were not met, and the airbags did not deploy according to the vehicle’s design parameters.

The Commission additionally noted that the complainant had not produced any independent expert report or scientific analysis to challenge the findings contained in the manufacturer’s technical report.

“Reliance on speculative assertions regarding potential injury risk, hypothetical consequences of non-deployment or visual perception of airbags that did not inflate, while rhetorically compelling, cannot substitute for the evidentially anchored proof required by law,” observed the Commission.

It further emphasised that when allegations of manufacturing defect are raised in relation to technologically sophisticated products, the burden lies on the complainant to substantiate the claim with credible technical evidence.

The Commission pointed out that the complainant had not availed the statutory mechanism available under consumer law for independent testing or expert examination of the product.

On the importance of meeting the legal burden of proof in such cases, the Commission held,

“Where technical, contemporaneous and credible evidence remains unchallenged and the complainant fails to discharge the burden of proof or utilise available statutory channels, claims of manufacturing defect or non-deployment of safety features cannot, in law or logic, be sustained and speculative assertions regarding hypothetical injury risks cannot substitute for concrete proof.”

In view of these findings, the Commission concluded that the complainant had failed to establish any manufacturing defect or deficiency in service on the part of the manufacturer or the dealer and dismissed the complaint.

Advocate S Ranjith Kumar appeared for the complainant.

Law firm J Sagar Associates represented Mercedes-Benz India. Advocates Sidharth Sethi, Sai Barath, Shivangi Pathak, Ancy Jacob and Dharaniya Sri KM appeared in the matter.

Law firm Ramasubramaniam Associates appeared on behalf of the dealer.

[Read Order]