NCDRC Cancels Compensation For Non-Deployment Of Airbag In Honda Car Accident
The bench noted that the complainant had not fastened the seat belt
NCDRC Cancels Compensation For Non-Deployment Of Airbag In Honda Car Accident
The bench noted that the complainant had not fastened the seat belt
In a notable verdict, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has set aside the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which directed Honda Motors to pay Rs.1 lakh compensation to the complainant for non-deployment of airbags following an accident.
In the Honda Cars India Ltd v Ushat Gulgule case, the Coram of Subhash Chandra (presiding member) and Sadhna Shanker (member) noted that the complainant had not fastened the seat belt during the accident, causing non-deployment of the airbag.
Importantly, airbags in vehicles work only when seat belts are fastened.
The NCDRC stated, "The issue of seat belt not being required to be buckled has not been supported by any evidence. The finding of the State Commission that there was a manufacturing defect without it being established under Section 13(1)(a), which required to be compensated under Section 14 is, therefore, not based on any finding of fact or legal precedent.”
The complainant purchased a Honda Civic from a dealer in Pune, Maharashtra. In 2013, the car’s front portion was damaged during an accident on the Western Express Highway.
The complainant’s left arm and shoulder were injured, leading to Rs.40,000 medical treatment. For this, he sought compensation and approached the State Commission.
In its submission, Honda apprised the State Commission that airbags deployed when specific conditions were met, one of which was that the seat belt was buckled. It pointed out that the complainant did not fasten the seat belt. Also, the car was repaired to the complainant's satisfaction and there was no case for damages.
However, the State Commission did not find any expert opinion to support Honda's contention regarding specific airbag deployment conditions. It ruled in favor of the complainant maintaining that the airbags should have opened during the accident.
Aggrieved by the outcome, Honda approached the NCDRC.
The automobile manufacturer argued that the complainant had not alleged a manufacturing defect and the company could not be held liable unless the manufacturing defect was proved.
The company pointed out that the complainant relied on the opinion of the Western India Automobile Association, which did not constitute ‘expert opinion’ under the Consumer Protection Act and did not state any manufacturing defect.
Honda added that there was no extreme, offset collision with an oncoming vehicle or impact with a stationary obstacle resulting in the sudden deceleration warranting deployment of the airbags as per the car’s manual.
At this, the complainant pointed out that the price of the car with airbags was higher and reiterated that he suffered serious injuries. He claimed that the Automobile Association report was an ‘expert opinion’ and given the nature of the accident, the airbags should have opened.
Relying on a 2015 news report, he added that Honda had recalled about two lakh Civic sedan cars between 2003 and 2012 due to airbag defects.
The NCDRC observed that to establish inherent defects, a consumer forum had to obtain an expert report, which was not done by the State Commission.
It stated, "In the absence of any technical or expert opinion as required under Section 13(1)(c), the finding of the State Commission of a defect in the car is not sustainable.”
It added that the complainant could not rely on a news report, as he failed to prove that his car belonged to the defective batch.
The bench stated that the State Commission’s contention that a seatbelt had no role in airbag activation was not supported by evidence and was not based on any finding or legal precedent.
Thus, while setting aside the State Commission’s order, the NCDRC allowed Honda's appeal.