Airbag failure: Supreme Court rejects Mercedes Benz defence that seat belt was sufficient protection

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a ₹10 lakh fine imposed on Mercedes Benz India Private Limited for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on account of the non-deployment of airbags in one of its cars during an accident [Mercedes Benz India Private Limited v. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited and Others]..Justices Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal also rejected an argument by Mercedes that there was no need for airbags on the driver's side of the car to deploy since the driver was sufficiently restrained by his seat belt."Even if it is accepted that the airbags would deploy only when the seat belt was fastened by the passenger, in the instant case admittedly, the frontal airbags of the car were not deployed though the driver had already fastened the seat belt. Thus, the defect in the car was clearly established so far as non-deployment of frontal airbags was concerned," the Court said.The Court further pulled up Mercedes Benz for not disclosing either in the owner’s manual or in its brochure about the limits of its airbag feature.The Court concluded that this was an unfair trade practice and upheld the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) decision to slap a total fine of ₹10 lakh for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Court upheld the NCRDC's decision to impose ₹25,000 on the automotive company as litigation costs as well."Incomplete disclosure or non-disclosure of the complete details with regard to the functioning of the airbags at the time of promotion of the car, has rightly been considered by the National Commission as the “unfair trade practice” on the part of the appellants, and awarded a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs towards it. The National Commission has also rightly balanced the equity by awarding Rs. 5 lakhs only towards the deficiency in service on account of the frontal airbags of the car having not deployed at the time of accident," the Court said. .The Court was dealing with a case involving a Mercedes Benz, E-Class - E 240 petrol version, bought for around ₹45 lakhs in 2002. In 2006, a goods carrier collided with the Benz car, leading to serious injuries for both its driver and a passenger (vehicle owner) sitting at the rear seat. A consumer complaint was lodged over this incident. The vehicle's owner (complainant) argued that Mercedes Benz had advertised the car as being the safest location on the road, while also boasting of airbags as safety features. However, the airbags did not deploy during the accident. The complainant asserted that the injuries suffered on account of the collision would have been less severe if the airbags had deployed. Mercedes countered that the driver was sufficiently restrained by his seatbelt, and therefore there was no need for the airbag for the driver's seat to be deployed. It added that since the complainant was sitting at the rear seat, the front passenger’s airbag could not have been deployed. Since there was no impact on the side of the car, the side-airbags were not triggered, it further submitted.The Court, however, rejected Mercedes Benz's arguments.Referring to the complaint that the airbag features of Mercedes Benz fell short of its advertised claims, the Court added,"It is needless to say that a trade practice which for the purpose of promoting the sale of any goods by adopting deceptive practice like falsely representing that the goods are of a particular standard quality, style or model, would amount to 'unfair trade practice' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(r) of the said Act.".In a connected matter dealt with in the same judgment, the Court also directed Mercedes Benz to refund ₹36 lakh to another vehicle owner after his car was found to suffer from a defect of excessive heating..Supreme Court orders Mercedes to refund ₹36 lakh for defective car .Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, advocates Sidharth Sethi, Avinash Das, PS Sudheer, Prasouk Jain, Rabiya Thakur, Saurabh Mishra, Karan Sinha, Shalini Nair, Komal Gupta and Vivek Jain appeared for Mercedes Benz.Advocates Arun Khosla, MA Chinnasamy, C Raghavendren, C Rubavathi, Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Saurabh Gupta, Sidharth Sethi, Avinash Das and PS Sudheer appeared for the complainants..[Read Judgment]