The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently set aside an order of a State Commission directing Honda to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation for non-deployment of airbags following an accident [Honda Cars India Ltd v Ushat Gulgule].

Presiding Member Subhash Chandra and Member Sadhna Shanker arrived at the decision after finding that the seat belts were not fastened in the present case which had caused non-deployment of airbags.

Airbags in cars work only when seat belts are fastened.

The NCDRC noted that the complainant's argument, suggesting that the seatbelt does not need to be engaged for airbag activation, lacked supporting evidence.

"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 the same 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 order dated April 2 stated.

The complainant had purchased a Honda Civic from a dealership in Pune. The car met with an accident in 2013 on the Western Express Highway which left its front portion damaged.

The complainant injured his left arm and shoulder, leading to medical treatment worth ₹40,000. Aggrieved, he moved the State Commission seeking compensation.

Honda informed the State Commission that airbags deploy when specific conditions are met, one of which is that the seatbelt is buckled. It pointed out that the complainant had not worn the seatbelt.

Further, Honda pointed out that the car had been repaired to the complainant's satisfaction and contended that there was no case for damages.

The State Commission noted that there was no expert opinion on record to support Honda's contention regarding specific conditions for airbag deployment.

Therefore, it concluded that the airbags should have opened and decided the complaint in favour of the complainant. Aggrieved, Honda moved NCDRC.

Honda argued that the complainant had not alleged a manufacturing defect and therefore, it could not be held liable unless the manufacturing defect was proved.

Honda pointed out that the complainant had relied upon a brief opinion from the Western Automobile Association which did not constitute an ‘Expert Opinion’ under Consumer Protection Act and did not state that there was a manufacturing defect.

Further, it was pointed out that there was no extreme, offset collision with an oncoming vehicle or impact with a stationary obstacle resulting in sudden deceleration warranting deployment of the airbags as per the car’s manual.

On the other hand, the complainant pointed out that the price of the car with airbags was higher and reiterated that he had suffered serious injuries.

He claimed that the report of the Western India Automobile Association constituted an ‘Expert Opinion’ and that it had stated that the air bags ought to have opened given the nature of the accident.

He placed reliance on a news report from 2015 which said that Honda had recalled nearly 2 lakh Civic sedan cars between 2003 and 2012 due to airbag issues.

The NCDRC noted that to establish inherent defects, a consumer forum has to obtain an expert report, which was not done by the State Commission.

"In the absence of there being 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," the order stated.

Further, the NCDRC stated that the reliance on newspaper reports were of no help to the complainant as the complainant did not prove that his car belonged to the defective batch of cars.

Thereafter, it observed that the contention that the seatbelt does not have to be engaged for airbag activation was not supported by evidence and hence, the finding of the State Commission was not based on any finding of fact or legal precedent.

Accordingly, NCDRC allowed Honda's appeal and set aside the order of the State Commission.

Honda was represented by advocates Amol Chitale, Shweta Singh Parihar Sarthak Sharma and Priya S Bhalerao.

The complainant was represented by advocate Sachin Saini.

[Read Order]