Non-Deployment Of Airbags During Accident, Toyota And Its Dealer Held Liable To Pay Rs. 60,000/- To Customer

Brief Facts:

Nirbhay Garg (“Complainant”) alleged that his Toyota Innova (“Vehicle”), purchased in 2008, experienced airbag deployment failures during two separate accidents. The vehicle had been consistently serviced at EM PEE Motors, Pioneer Toyota (“Dealer”), situated in Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh. The first accident occurred on November 17, 2015, resulting in significant front-end damage. Despite the substantial impact, the airbags did not deploy. A similar incident transpired on June 24, 2020, when another collision caused front-end damage, yet the airbags remained non-operational. The Complainant’s attempts to address the issue with the dealer were met with the assertion that there was no deficiency in their service.

Aggrieved, the Complainant filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh (“District Commission”), seeking a compensation for the mental distress and harassment caused by the repeated failures of airbag deployment.

The dealer contested the Complainant’s claim by asserting that there was no deficiency in their service. They also highlighted that the complaint might be a result of the undisclosed fact that the Complainant had remaining unpaid dues amounting to Rs. 1,23,348/- and additional charges. They implied that the Complainant’s repeated accidents indicated he may not be a competent driver and suggested hiring a professional driver to prevent further damage. In addition, the Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd (“Manufacturer”) argued that the vehicle's self-diagnosis system was functioning appropriately, indicating no inherent defects in the airbag system. They emphasized that airbag deployment depended on factors like vehicle speed, impact angle, and collision force. They contended that the vehicle's impact did not meet the criteria for airbag deployment and that the minimum threshold force required for deployment was not reached.

Observations of the Commission:

The District Commission recognized the importance of airbags as a critical safety feature in vehicles, designed to protect occupants during collisions. It further observed that the Complainant’s expectations as a consumer were valid, as he had purchased a vehicle equipped with airbags under the assumption that they would deploy in case of accidents. The repeated failures of the airbag system to activate during the accidents raised concerns about the effectiveness of the safety feature and its implications for consumer safety.

While the dealer argued that the Complainant had unpaid dues and suggested hiring a professional driver, the District Commission emphasized that the primary focus should be on the functionality of the airbag system itself. The non-deployment of airbags during collisions remained the core issue at hand. Similarly, the District Commission acknowledged the manufacturer's assertion that airbag deployment depended on factors such as collision force and impact angle. However, the District Commission noted that the Complainant’s accidents involved substantial front-end damage, which would generally trigger airbag deployment according to safety standards.

In light of these considerations, the District Commission leaned towards the Complainant’s position, as the primary concern was the non-deployment of airbags during accidents. The District Commission directed the dealer and the manufacturer jointly to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for mental distress and harassment caused by the repeated failures of airbag deployment. Additionally, the dealer and the manufacturer were directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.

Case: EM PEE Motors Ltd vs Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CC/835/2021

Advocate for the Complainant: Dilraj Singh Bhinder

Advocate for the Respondent: S.R. Bansal and Gaurav Bhardwaj

Click Here To Read/Download Order