National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. vs Yogesh Jain & Anr. on 2 April, 2026
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/2602/2017
(Against the Order dated 13th July 2017 in Appeal No. 260/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission Punjab)
A.B. MOTORS PVT. LTD.
PRESENT ADDRESS - (BHAGAR FORD)MOHAN VIHAR AMRITSAR GATE , AMRITSAR ,
PUNJAB ,
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
YOGESH JAIN & ANR.
PRESENT ADDRESS - SON OF SH. KULWANT RAI JAIN ADVOCATE,HOUSE NO. N-7/23,
SETH CHAUTURABHUJ ROAD , AMRITSAR , PUNJAB ,
FORD INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,
PRESENT ADDRESS - S.P KOIL POST , CHENGALPATTU - 603204
YOGESH JAIN
PRESENT ADDRESS - -
.......Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/2603/2017
(Against the Order dated 13th July 2017 in Appeal No. 268/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission Punjab)
M/S. FORD INDIA PVT. LTD.
PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS MANAGER LEGAL HAVING ITS OFFICE AT S.P. KOIL
POST CHENGALPATTU, , KANCHEEPURAM -603204 , TAMIL NADU ,
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
YOGESH JAIN & ANR.
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O. KULWANT RAI JAIN, HOUSE NO. N-7/23, SETH CHATURBHUJ
ROAD, , AMRITSAR , PUNJAB ,
M/S. A.B. MOTORS PVT. LTD.,
PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER, BHAGAT FORD, MOHAN VIHAR
NEAR NEW AMRITSAR GATE, , AMRITSAR, , PUNJAB ,
YOGESH JAIN
PRESENT ADDRESS - -
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH , PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE JUSTICE DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN , MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
FOR YOGESH JAIN/ THE COMPLAINANT : MR. NISHANT DATTA, ADVOCATE WITH
MR. PRADEEP BHARDWAJ AND MR. CHIRAG RATHI, ADVOCATES FOR FORD
INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED/ THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1/ THE MANUFACTURER :
MS. DIYA SINGH YADAV, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
FOR A.B. MOTORS/ THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2/ THE DEALER : MR. NARENDER
SINGH YADAV, ADVOCATE (VC)
DATED: 02/04/2026
ORDER
JUDGMENT DR.SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. The relevant facts arising from the record are that Yogesh Jain/the complainant in the complaint/the respondent no 1 in revision petitions bearing no 2602/2017 and 2603/2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") purchased Ford Eco Sport (optional) (hereinafter referred to as "the vehicle") bearing chassis no MAJAXXMRKAFY50957 and engine no FY50957 from Ford India Private Limited/the opposite party no 1 in the complaint/the respondent no 2 in revision petition no 2602/2017 and the petitioner in revision petition no 2603/2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the manufacturer") through dealer A.B. Motors Private Limited (Bhagat Ford), Amritsar/the opposite party no 2 in the complaint/the petitioner in revision petition no 2602/2017 and the respondent no 2 in revision petition no 2603/2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") on 01.07.2015 for a sale consideration of 1042776/- for personal use. The vehicle was registered with registration no PB02-CS-1233 and was under full warranty coverage by manufacturer till 2.7.2018. The vehicle was insured with New India Insurance Company Limited vide Certificate cum policy No.71050131150100183479. The vehicle on 27.5.2017 during validity of insurance policy met with an accident on 27.05.2016 on G.T.Road, Pathankot-Amritsar Expressway and suffered damages on all four sides and after impact with the divider of road tumbled completely and rolled over to the other side of the road. The driver suffered head injuries and injuries on neck and arms. The vehicle had safety features with 6 airbags but only 2 airbags of the right side (inside driver's seat and one on overhead) at the time of the accident opened but the front air bag on the driver side and 3 airbags of the left side did not open which was reflective of failure of safety systems and airbags in the vehicle besides major inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle at the time of accident. The failure of security system of the vehicle at the time of the accident could have led to the extensive injuries and a fatal threat to life to the driver.
1.1 The vehicle was towed and brought to workshop of the dealer in the night of 27.05.2016. The dealer assured the complainant that the vehicle would be repaired within in 15-20 days and the manufacturing defects relating to faulty airbags and security system would be replaced. The manufacturer was bound to rectify the manufacturing defect which led to mal-functioning of airbags safety system and to repair the accidental damage by 15.06.2016. The vehicle remained in the custody of the dealer for repairs for three months but the dealer has failed to rectify the inherent manufacturing defects related to the security of the vehicle. The complainant was contacting the dealer for last three months but without any result. It was informed that efforts to resolve the manufacturing defects were under process but not proved to be successful. The vehicle was within first year full warranty with validity till 02.07.2018. The complainant registered a complaint with head office of the manufacturer on 19.08.2016 vide request no. 0800120414 dated 19.08.2016 about failure of the dealer to rectify manufacturing defects related to security system of the vehicle and deliver the vehicle back after repair to the complainant within reasonable time. The manufacturer promised to give feed-back after consulting with the dealer but no feedback was received with regard to rectification of manufacturing defects. The complainant being aggrieved with alleged deficiency in service on the part of the manufacturer and dealer filed present consumer complaint titled as Yogesh Jain V Ford India Private Limited bearing no CC/16/468 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") under sections 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") wherein prayed that the manufacturer and dealer i.e. the opposite parties be directed to refund the cost of the vehicle amounting to Rs.10,42,776/- along with interest thereon from the date of payment till realization besides Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and adequate cost of litigation to the complainant.
2. The manufacturer filed reply to the complaint. The manufacturer in preliminary objections stated that the complainant has failed to disclose any 'defect' or 'deficiency in service' or 'unfair trade practice' qua the manufacturer. The complaint is without any cause of action and as such is not maintainable. The manufacturer manufactures highly sophisticated and high-tech cars which are put through strict ore-delivery tests of international standards after having gone through various stringent tests at every stage of manufacturing. The complainant did not specify any detail of the accident and also did not annex photographs of accidental car or any inspection report from any automobile expert to substantiate its claim. The accident of the vehicle happened due to collision with the divider on the road. The manual of the vehicle which was also supplied to the complainant in clear terms stated that the air bags will deploy during significant frontal collision or collisions that are up to 30 degree from the left or the right. The complainant admitted that 2 airbags on the right side of the vehicle had deployed and were working correctly upon collision. The impact occurred on the right side of the vehicle due to which the right SRS airbags inflated and saved the life of the driver. The SRS (Supplemental Restraint System) bags were not suffering from any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. The airbags would not deploy in cases of minor frontal collision. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as alleged by the complainant and the complainant did not obtain any expert opinion to substantiate its claim. The warranty of the vehicle was ceased to operate when the vehicle was subjected to accident. The SRS airbags were not suffering from any defect. The main purpose of the SRS airbags in the vehicle was to reduce the intensity of the impact on collision and not to do away with the impact all together. The manufacturer shared relationship with the dealer on principal to principal basis and as such acts or omissions of the dealer cannot be regarded as that of the manufacturer. The dealer is responsible to provide ancillary services such as after sale service or accidental repair service and the manufacturer is not responsible for ancillary services. The manufacturer is only liable for manufacturing defects. The complainant was required to seek redressal of grievance with respect to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service only against the dealer. The complainant did not suffer any loss due to any act of the manufacturer. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and the manufacturer. The manufacturer on reply on merits denied other allegations as stated by the complainant in the complaint. However the manufacturer was ordered to be proceeded ex parte by the District Forum vide order dated 17.11.2016.
2.1 The dealer did not file reply within a stipulated period of 45 days and as such right to file the reply was forfeited vide order dated 17.11.2016.
3. The complainant tendered affidavit in evidence and relied on documents Ex. C-2 to C-9. The manufacturer and dealer did not adduce evidence.
4. The District Forum vide order dated 14.03.2017 allowed the complaint. The District Forum observed that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the manufacturer through dealer vide invoice Ex. C2 for a sale consideration of Rs. 10,42,776/- and as such the complainant is a consumer under the Act. The vehicle met with an accident on 27.05.2016 and vehicle due to impact of the accident suffered damage. The District Forum also observed that the vehicle was having safety features with 6 airbags but at the time of impact only 2 airbags on the right side were opened but the front air bag on the driver side and 3 airbags on the left side were not opened. The District Forum opined that there was failure of safety systems and airbags in the vehicle which was reflective of major inherent defects in the vehicle. The dealer was bound to rectify the manufacturing defects which led to malfunctioning of the airbags security system. The manufacturer and dealer did not rebut the evidence led by the complainant. The District Forum further opined that the manufacturer and the dealer admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. The District Forum has directed the opposite parties i.e. the manufacturing and the dealer i.e. jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs. 10,42,776/- being cost of the vehicle to the complainant subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of RC of the vehicle in question etc. in favour of the opposite parties by the complainant. The District Forum has also awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation along with Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. The District Forum also directed compliance of the order within one month from the date of order, failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till full and final payment.
5. The manufacturer and dealer being aggrieved filed separate appeal bearing F.A. No. 268 of 2017 titled as M/s. Ford India Private Limited V Yogesh Jain and another and bearing F.A. No. 260 of 2017 titled as A.B. Motors Private Limited V Yogesh Jain and another respectively before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission"
). The State Commission vide its order dated 13.07.2017 (hereinafter referred to as ' the impugned Order') had dismissed both the appeals filed by the manufacturer and dealer i.e. the opposite parties and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission in impugned order countered the argument that the complainant could not prove manufacturing defects in the vehicle by observing that the vehicle on 27.05.2016 met with an accident and suffered damage due to impact of accident and further the vehicle was having 6 safety airbags but only 2 airbags on the right side were opened rather 6 airbags should have opened which proved inherent manufacturing defect. The State Commission further observed that the manufacturer and dealer being the opposite parties did not controvert pleadings and led any evidence. The State Commission in impugned order expressed disagreement with the plea of the manufacturer and dealer i.e. opposite parties that the complainant could not prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle and relied on principle of res ipsa loquitur to establish that 4 bags out of 6 bags did not open. The State Commission to justify the refund also observed that the opposite parties i.e. the manufacturer and dealer have failed to rectify the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The State Commission also considered the argument advanced on behalf of dealer i.e. the opposite party no 2 that the manufacturer is only liable and not the dealer and observed that in absence of pleading it cannot be inferred that the agreement between the manufacturer and dealer i.e. the opposite parties was principal to principal basis. The State Commission opined that the order passed by the District Forum was justified and dismissed the appeals.
6. The opposite parties i.e. the manufacturer and dealer being aggrieved filed the present revision petitions bearing R.P. No. 2603 of 2017 titled as Ford India Private Limited V Yogesh Jain and another bearing R.P. No.2602 of 2017 tiled as A. B. Motors Private Limited V Yogesh Jain and another' under section 21(b) of the Act to challenge the impugned order primarily on grounds that the State Commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and there was material irregularity/illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission. The State Commission made gross error by concluding that there was inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle and safety systems of the vehicle due to which airbags could not be opened without any government approved test report or expert opinion. The complainant did not adduce any expert opinion or technical evidence to prove inherent defect in the vehicle. The State Commission has failed to appreciate that the vehicle was brought to the opposite party no. 2/ the dealer by the complainant for its repair under the insurance coverage after the accident and not to rectify the alleged manufacturing defect in it. The District Forum has also not complied with the provisions as provided under Sections 13(1) (c) and 14 of the Act before coming to the conclusion that there was inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle which is mandatory and not directory as per law which clearly states that a defect in any good complained off cannot be determined without the proper analysis or test of such goods. The impugned order and order passed by the District Forum are liable to be set aside as based on presumptions conjectures and surmises. The complaint is also liable to be set aside. The District Commission or the State Commission as per above Sections 13(1) (c) and 14 of the Act should have send the vehicle to an appropriate laboratory with direction for making and test as may be necessary and to file its report within 45 days of the receipt of reference or extended period if any.
6.1 The manufacturer/the opposite party no.1 further challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the State Commission without any expert opinion or report having been filed by the complainant and without any expert evidence had presumed that the allegations made by the complainant as gospel truth and has passed the impugned order without any basis and documentary proof. The complainant has not come with clean hands before the District Forum and suppressed material facts before it as he did not file copy of owner's user manual provided with the subject vehicle to prove that as to how the safety system of airbags functions and has misled the District Forum which had passed the order in favour of the complainant which was upheld by the State Commission. The manufacturer/the opposite party no.1 also challenged the impugned order on the ground that the State Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that the District Forum acted with gross illegality in closing the right of the opposite party in filing the written statement before expiry of the statutory period of 45 days. The opposite parties being manufacturer and dealer prayed that the present revision petitions be allowed and the order passed by the State Commission and the District Forum be set- aside and the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum be dismissed.
7. We have heard Sh. Nishant Datta, Mr. Pradeep Bhardwaj and Mr. Chirag Rathi, Advocates for the complainant, Mr. Narender Singh Yadav, Advocates for the dealer and Ms. Divya Singh Yadav, Advocate for the manufacturer of the vehicle. We have also considered the relevant records including the order passed by the District Forum as well as impugned order passed by the State Commission besides written arguments filed by the parties.
8. The counsel for the complainant argued that present revision petitions are not maintainable as the impugned order passed by the State Commission is based on cogent reasons which does not call any interference or suffers from any infirmity. The scope of revision under the Act is limited and there is no material illegality or illegality in the impugned order. The District Forum rightly relied on principles of res ipsa loquitur to affix the liability on the manufacturer as regard to the defect in the airbag system. The State Commission and the District Forum rightly observed that expert evidence was not necessary under given facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel for the complainant relied on decisions delivered by this Commission in Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. and others V Lalit Arora, Revision Petition bearing no. 1619 of 2012 decided on 06.07.2012 and Vinod Premchand Rohida V Skoda Auto India Private Limited and others, First Appeal No. 223 of 2016 decided on 29.09.2021. The counsel also referred Hyundai Motor India Limited V Shailendra Bhatnagar, Civil Appeal No. 3001 of 2022 decided on 20.04.2022 by the Supreme Court.
8.1 The additional written submissions were also submitted on behalf of the complainant wherein countered the contention of the manufacturer that airbags did not deploy because the seatbelt was not fastened on the side of passenger and stated that said argument is scientifically unsound and technologically baseless. It is argued that airbag system operates as a Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) which is entirely distinct and separate from the seat belt mechanism and referred a technical article written by TATA AIG Team. The wearing of seatbelt does not absolve the manufacturer from the liability pertaining to the defective airbags. It was argued that the revision petitions be dismissed.
9. The counsel for the manufacturer advanced oral arguments and written submissions are also placed on record. It is argued that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity as the State Commission did not follow mandatory provisions as contained in sections 13 (1) (c) and 14 of the Act. The District Forum without following mandatory provision of section 13 (1) (c) of the Act wrongly observed that allegations and evidence adduced by the complainant remained uncontroverted and allowed the complaint. The State Commission also passed the impugned order based on contradictory facts. The State Commission ought to have followed the procedure under section 13 (1) (c) particularly when the complainant alleged manufacturing defect. It is further argued that the State Commission arrived at wrong finding that the car suffered from manufacturing defect but the dealer did not mention about manufacturing defect at the time repair. The counsel after placing reliance on Owner Manual argued that the airbags on the driver side deploys only during significant frontal collisions and collisions that are up to 30 degrees from the left or right. It is further argued that airbags do not deploy during minor frontal collisions, overturns, real collisions and side collisions. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the manufacturer. The reliance was placed on Mercedes Benz India Private Limited V Revathi Giri and others, MANU/CF/0732/2023; Maruti Udyog Limited V Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another, AIR 2006 SC 1586 etc. 9.1 The additional written synopsis is also filed on behalf of the manufacturer in response to the photographs allowed to be submitted on behalf of the complainant and it was argued that photographs cannot replace or dilute mandatory statutory requirement of establishing alleged manufacturing defects through cogent expert evidence. It is also argued that the complainant handed over the vehicle to the dealer only for the repair and not for any alleged manufacturing defect. The reliance was placed on Cadbury India Limited V Kanteppa, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 4621 and AI Fauz International V Audi India, 2025 SCC OnLine NCDRC 4621. It was argued the impugned order be set aside.
10. It is argued on behalf of the dealer that airbags of the vehicle were fully functional and the airbags would not deploy in case of overturns. The complainant did not pay the repair charges and filed a false consumer complaint by alleging manufacturing defect in the airbags. There was no deficiency service on part of the dealer. The District Forum has failed to follow procedure as per section 13 of the Act. It was argued that the impugned order be set aside.
11. The safety of the vehicles and their drivers is of paramount importance and needs to be taken seriously by the automobile industry and by those who are working in said industry. The automobile industries are working to device and implement technologies directed for the safety environment. It is known fact that every year accidents cause hundreds of deaths on the road and their consequences are serious problem for the victims and even for the country itself. In recent years various techniques have been gradually introduced to build and developed robust and reliable vehicle safety systems. The driving nowadays has become much safer and incorporation of safety systems and devices in vehicles in driving and driving aids has resulted in a drastic reduction in the number of accidents and improving the various types of safety systems is a priority objective. The active and passive safety measures are incorporated in vehicles for driving safety. The active safety devices such as lane departure warning system prevent happening of an accident. The passive safety systems such as seal belts and airbags are activated in the event when an accident is unavoidable and to reduce the chances of death and serious injury. The passive safety systems are intended to reduce the damage to passengers and have been integrated into the design of vehicles as their necessary part as last defence to prevent the possibility of serious injury or death in an accident to the driver and passengers. The air bags as a passive safety measure activate in the event of a collision ensure that the driver and passengers do not collide with the vehicle structure in the event of a collision. The airbags are vital SRS (Supplemental Restraint Systems) which drastically reduce fatalities and injuries in car accidents. The airbags work with seat belts to provide a cushion that prevents occupants from striking hard vehicle surfaces. The airbags inflate very fast upon collision detection to provide instant protection. The airbags reduce the severity of head, chest and neck injuries by spreading the impact force across the body. The airbags along with seat belts increases protection in frontal collisions compared with seat belts alone. There may be various types of airbags such as frontal, side impact/curtain and knee. The airbags work as a supplement to seat belts and are supplemental protection and designed to work best in combination with seat belts. The frontal and side-impact air bags are generally designed to deploy in moderate to severe crashes and may deploy in even a minor crash. The air bags deploy very rapidly and cannot guarantee complete safety of the passengers but significantly decrease the risk of fatal injuries and are a critical safety feature. An airbag system acts like a rapid- response safety cushion detecting a severe collision via sensors and inflating nitrogen filled nylon bag in 20-40 milliseconds. The sensors trigger a chemical reaction that produces gas to fill the bag at speed up to 200 mph before the occupant hits it.
12. We shall refer admitted factual background of the present case. The complainant purchased the vehicle manufactured by the manufacturer the dealer on 01.07.2015 for a sale consideration of 1042776/- and was under full warranty coverage by manufacturer till 2.7.2018. The vehicle on 27.5.2017 met with an accident on 27.05.2016 and after impact with the road divider rolled over to the other side of the road. The 2 airbags out of 6 airbags of the right side which were inside seat of the driver and one on overhead opened at the time of the accident but front air bag on the driver side and 3 airbags of the left side did not open. The vehicle was brought to workshop of the dealer on 27.05.2016. The vehicle was under warranty till 02.07.2018 and the complainant also registered a complaint with the manufacturer on 19.08.2016. The complainant filed the present consumer complaint which was allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 14.03.2017 by observing that the vehicle suffered damage due to accident on 27.05.2016 and at the time of impact only 2 airbags on the right side were opened but the front air bag on the driver side and 3 airbags on the left side were not opened. The District Forum opined that it was a major inherent defect in the vehicle. The State Commission dismissed the appeals filed by the manufacturer and dealer vide impugned order by observing that the vehicle on 27.05.2016 met with an accident but only 2 airbags on the right side were opened while 6 airbags should have opened. The State Commission relied on principle of res ipsa loquitur to substantiate manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
13. We shall first consider the main argument advanced on behalf of the manufacturer in particular and the dealer that the State Commission did not follow mandatory provisions as contained in sections 13 (1) (c) and 14 of the Act. Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act provides that if the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant and refer the sample to the appropriate laboratory for analysis or test to find out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect. Section 14 provides that if the District Forum is satisfied that the goods suffer from any of the defects as specified in the complaint then the District Forum shall issue appropriate order to the opposite party as described in the order. It is reflecting that the vehicle met with an accident on 27.05.2016 and at that time only 2 airbags out of 6 airbags were opened as detailed herein above which was accepted by the District Forum and the State Commission as manufacturing defect. There is no expert opinion or report produced by the complainant to substantiate his plea of manufacturing defect in the vehicle. However the District Forum in order dated 14.03.2017 observed that the vehicle was having safety features with 6 airbags but at the time of impact only 2 airbags on the right side were opened which was reflective of major inherent defects in the vehicle. The State Commission in the impugned order countered the argument that the complainant could not prove manufacturing defects in the vehicle and observed that the vehicle due to impact of accident suffered damage and only 2 airbags on the right side were opened in place of 6 airbags which proved inherent manufacturing defect. The District Forum and the State Commission further observed that the manufacturer and dealer did not controvert pleadings and led any evidence. The State Commission was also not in agreement with the plea of the manufacturer and dealer that the complainant could not prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle and relied on principle of res ipsa loquitur to establish that 4 bags out of 6 bags did not open. The District Forum and the State Commission also observed that the manufacturer and dealer have failed to rectify the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The State Commission also considered the argument advanced on behalf of dealer i.e. the opposite party no 2 that the manufacturer is only liable and not the dealer and observed that in absence of pleading it cannot be inferred that the agreement between the manufacturer and dealer i.e. the opposite parties was principal to principal basis. The State Commission upheld the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the appeals. We are in the agreement with the findings of the District Forum and the State Commission that if only two bags were opened out of six bags then it does amount to manufacturing defect and no expert evidence or expert opinion was required to be produced by the complainant. The factum of accident and deployment of only two air bags id not disputed either by the manufacturer and the dealer and as such doctrine of res ipsa louqitur is applicable in present case.
14. We are in agreement advanced by the counsel for the complainant the impugned order passed by the State Commission is based on cogent reasons and the District Forum rightly relied on principles of res ipsa loquitur to affix the liability on the manufacturer as regard to the defect in the airbag system and further expert evidence was not necessary under given facts and circumstances of the case. We are also in agreement that airbag system is entirely distinct and separate from the seat belt mechanism and the manufacturer and the dealer could not produce any evidence and material to reflect that airbag system is connected with seal belt. There is force in contention of the complainant that wearing of seatbelt does not absolve the manufacturer from the liability pertaining to the defective airbags. We have also considered the arguments advanced by the manufacturer and the dealer that the State Commission did not follow mandatory provisions as contained in sections 13 (1) (c) of the Act and the District Forum without following mandatory provision of section 13 (1)
(c) of the Act wrongly observed that allegations and evidence adduced by the complainant remained uncontroverted and allowed the complaint. We are not in agreement with said contentions and arguments advanced on behalf of the manufacturer and dealer in view of above discussion. There is no force in argument that the vehicle was not suffering from manufacturing defect. The reliance of the counsel for the manufacturer on Owner Manual to the effect that the airbags on the driver side deploys only during significant frontal collisions and collisions that are up to 30 degrees from the left or right is without any support of convincing material. We are after considering material placed on record of the considered opinion that the vehicle was suffering from material defect and the State Commission in the impugned order rightly observed that the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect.
15. We after careful analysis of material placed on record and rival contentions and arguments of the manufacturer and the dealer i.e. the opposite parties and the complainant do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission and the order passed by the District Forum which are well reasoned and passed after appropriate appreciation of facts and law. The impugned order passed by the State Commission does not call any interference or modification. There is no material irregularity or infirmity or jurisdictional error on record as per provisions of Section 21(b) of the Act which call or warrant for any kind of interference of this Commission in the orders passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission. The District Forum and the State Commission have given the concurrent findings and scope of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. It is accepted legal proposition that National Commission in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties like an appellate court. The Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta V United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC269 held that the scope of Revision Petition is limited and such powers can be exercised only if there is some prime facie jurisdictional error appearing in the order. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity V State Bank of India & others, AIR 2022 SC577 held as under:-
The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
16. We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the State Commission and order passed by the District Forum. Accordingly, both the revision petitions bearing R.P. No. 2602 of 2017 and R.P. No. 2603 of 2017 being devoid of merit are dismissed and the pending applications, if any also disposed of.
..................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN MEMBER SUKHBIR SINGH/Court-3/A