State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bmw India Pvt Ltd vs Cyber Hat Solutions Pvt Ltd on 17 April, 2026
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.551 OF 2024 AGAINST ORDERS IN
CC.NO.03 OF 2023, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I,
HYDERABAD
Between:
BMW India Pvt.Ltd.,
Having its registered office at
2nd Floor, Oberoi Centre, Building No.11,
DLF Cyber City, Phase II,
Gurugram-122002, Haryana, India.
......Appellant/Opp.Party No.1
And
1.CYBER HAT SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD., 8-3-228/A/R/501, Near Check Post, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500045, represented by Its CEO, Shriram Simha Teja P. ......Respondent No.1/Complainant No.1
2. Shriram Simha Teja, S/o.Sri Mahesh Chandra Kiron P. Aged 37 years, R/o.8-3-228/A/R/501, Near Check Post, Yousufguda, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500045.
......Respondent No.2/Complainant No.2
3. BMW Service Center-Ambattur, B7 & B8, 1, Ambattur Industrial Estate Road, Ambattur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600058.
......Respondent No.3/Opp.Party No.2
4. Kun Motoren Pvt.Ltd., 6-3-659, Kun Exclusive, Opp: RTA Office, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500082.
......Respondent No.4/Opp.Party No.3
5. Tata AIG Insurance Company, Floor-2, My Home Tycoon, Greenlands, Begumpet, Hyderabad- 500016.
......Respondent No.5/Opp.Party No.4
6. Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., 3rd Floor, 6-3-666/B/6, Gokul Towers, Punjagutta, Hyderabad - 500082.
......Respondent No.6/Opp.Party No.5 (Claim not pressed against Respondent No.6) 2 Counsel for the Appellant/Opp.Party No.1: M/s.Ch.Pushyam Kiran Counsel for the Respondents 1&2 /Complainants1&2: Notice served Counsel for the Respondents3&4/Opp.Parties2&3:M/sK.Visweshwar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.5/Opp.Party No.5: M/s N.Srinath Rao QUORAM:
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI ......PRESIDENT HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN ......MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL) HON'BLE SMT.R.S.RAJESHREE ......MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX ****** Order: (Per Smt.Dr.G.Radha Rani, Hon'ble President)
1. This appeal is filed by the Opposite Party No.1 aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad in CC.No.03/2023 dated 08.04.2024, wherein the complaint was allowed in part directing the Opposite Party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainants for causing deficiency of service.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the District Commission as Complainants and Opposite Parties.
3. (a) The case of the Complainants was that, the Complainants brought BMW 3 series GT with AT BSIV vehicle with registration No.TS09FL2324 in the month of July, 2019 from Opposite Party No.3 and got it insured with Opposite Parties 4 and 5. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 claimed that they were setting benchmarks in the vehicle safety and that they were pioneers in the safety innovations which made BMW vehicles leader in the automotive safety over the years. The first and second 3 Opposite Parties cars were said to have been designed not only to meet applicable laws and regulations but also to advance the state of the art in safety whenever practicable. Upon the colourful words of the first and second Opposite Parties through their website and advertisements, the Complainants purchased the subject vehicle through Opposite Party No.3.
On 01.03.2022 at 4:00 P.M. the subject vehicle met with a fatal accident at Thanjavur Taluk, Tamilnadu. FIR No.157/2022 was registered with regard to the accident at Thanjavur Taluk, Thanjavur, Tamilnadu. At the time of accident, five people were travelling in the car, two in the front and three in the back seats. After the accident, due to non-deployment of airbags in the car, the two passengers in the front seat got hurt very badly, as the wind shield shattered and the glass panes pierced the bodies of the passengers causing them injuries on the head, arms, chest, legs which resulted in permanent scars.
(b) When the passengers were taken to the hospital, they had to undergo several tests to detect and diagnose major injuries caused due to accident. The front portion of the vehicle got completely crushed due to the accident and they suffered fatal injuries and they escaped with severe injuries from this near to death experience. Inspite of happening of such a fatal crash, the airbags in the BMW car did not get deployed, due to which the passengers suffered severe injuries and got hospitalized for weeks and months altogether and had to bear exorbitant hospital expenses. The non- deployment of airbags caused severe injuries and a near death experience to him and to the lives of his dear ones. The Complainants had immediately called road side assistance from BMW (Opposite Party No.1) and TATA AIG Insurance (Opposite Party No.4). The Opposite Parties 1 and 4 requested the Complainants to send the pictures of the crashed subject vehicle for verification. As suggested by Opposite Parties 1 and 4, the Complainants had sent the subject vehicle to BMW Workshop (Opposite Party No.2) at Amattur, Chennai for further inspection and proceedings. After a few weeks, the inspection was completed by Opposite 4 Party No.4. The total front portion of the car was damaged which was evident through the photographs of the car taken at the site. Moreover, the level of damage occurred to the car was evident through the long list of service estimate given by the Opposite Party No.3. By this, it was evident that the subject vehicle was totally damaged which warranted the deployment of airbags in the subject vehicle. Even the police who had observed the accident spot, the condition of the car and the injuries upto the Complainants and passengers, had asked the Complainants whether the crashed car had airbags or not, as the airbags would have saved the Complainants from the lethal injuries and bruises.
(c) Subsequently, the Complainant and the passengers were taken to the hospital by the police and many Scans and X-rays were taken and the wounds and glass pieces were removed by the doctor. The entire episode after the car crash, Complainant and the passengers being treated in the hospital had been photographed and videos were taken by the police and the Complainants as well. The first Complainant was the owner of the car and the second Complainant was driving the subject vehicle when the subject vehicle was crashed. The grievance was pertaining to the failure of deployment of airbags at the time of accident. The Complainants called the first Opposite Party more than twenty times since the case had been registered. The personnel of Opposite Party No.1 were reckless and avoided the Complainant's call on one pretext or other. There had been no proper response to the grievances raised with the first Opposite Party's customer care. After repeated enquiries, the Opposite Party No.2 informed that the component/part of the airbag pertaining to the subject vehicle had been sent to the Opposite Party No.1 branch at Germany. After a long wait, the Complainants finally got a reply from Opposite Party No.1 through an email.
(d) The Complainants even went to Chennai to visit Opposite Party No.2 to get an understanding as to why airbags were not deployed, but of no avail. Had the airbags been deployed as promised and promoted by the 5 Opposite Parties, the Complainants might have never been so badly injured and be forced to face the mental stress of having the scars for lifetime. As such filed the Consumer Complaint against Opposite Parties 1 to 3 contending that the non-deployment of airbags during the accident would amount to deficiency in service as per Section-2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and would amount to unfair trade practice as per Section-2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prayed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses incurred by the Complainants and the fellow four passengers due to injuries inflicted because of non-deployment of airbags, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards travelling expenses to go to Chennai to talk to the second Opposite Party to resolve the grievance, to pay Rs.25,00,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the Complainants due to deficiency of service caused to them, to pay punitive damages to an extent of Rs.25,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice.
4. (a) The Opposite Party No.1 filed written version contenting that the complaint was not maintainable. Opposite Party No.1 was importing, assembling, wholesaling cars/vehicles to its authorized dealers in India, who in turn sell the BMW products/cars and provide services to the end customer. There was no relationship whatsoever between Opposite Party No.1 and 3 other than the later entity being the authorized dealers of the former in terms of the inter se Dealership Agreement. They contended that there was no defect in the airbag system of the vehicle. After the occurrence of the incident, the Complainant was duly informed by email dated 13.06.2022 that the impact of the accident was appropriately absorbed by the crumple zone of the vehicle. Since the impact forces/energy were absorbed by the crumple zone, therefore, the deployment of the airbags was not necessitated. The design of BMW vehicle was such that the body structure of vehicle absorbs the maximum impact/energy in the event of an accident, causing deformation. The body structure component which gets deformed due to impact is called crumple 6 zone and it was designed in such a way that the impact load on the passengers could be reduced significantly in the event of an accident. As evident from the photographs of the vehicle enclosed by the Complainant, the frame/passenger cabin of the vehicle remained intact demonstrating that the impact was absorbed by the front crumple zone components of the vehicle. There was no damage to the interior of the vehicle, which would again demonstrates that the impact of accident was absorbed by the crumple zone and did not get transferred to the cabin. It being the scenario, the minimum threshold limit required for deployment of airbags was not reached. In BMW vehicles, the airbag and restraint systems were aligned precisely to the deformation behaviour of the body. Depending on the type and severity of the accident, they were responsible for deploying the correct airbag with the required restraining effect at the exact time. Airbags and belt tensioners that were required were not activated by the intelligent system and continue to be available in the event of a possible second collision/threat in the event of accident. The owner's handbook for BMW 3 series specifically mentioned that the airbags would not be activated in every collision and that they would be activated only when the protection provided by the active safety components were no longer sufficient as per the vehicle intelligence system. Similar design/technology of airbags was present in vehicles manufactured by other manufacturers such as Audi and Mercedes. The design and technology used by BMW was as per the industry practice/standard.
(b) They further contended that the sole grievance of the Complainant was that the front wind shield broke and the glass pierced the body of the Complainant. It was the case of the Complainant that, had the airbags been deployed, the Complainant would have been protected from the glass pieces. They submitted that the front wind shield of the vehicle might shatter under various situations which might or might not include impact on the body of the vehicle. They contended that, if a heavy object falls directly on the wind shield causing it to shatter, in such cases, the airbags would not get deployed since there would be no impact on the 7 body of the vehicle. The airbags present in the vehicle are not designed to be deployed in the event there was impact on the wind screen. The Complainant's sole grievance was that he was not protected from the shattering of the wind shield also proves that no other damage was caused to the interior of the vehicle, demonstrating that the impact of the accident was appropriately absorbed by the crumple zone securing the passengers sitting inside the vehicle at the time of accident. Even if the front airbag had been deployed at the time of the accident, it would have been deflated immediately after cushioning the passengers.
(c) They further contended that it was well settled that a manufacturer of the vehicle could be held liable only if there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. To prove a manufacturing defect, the Complainant had to provide substantial evidence and bring on record an expert opinion to that effect. The present case was not of any manufacturing defect or malfunction in the vehicular system. The technical assessment team of the Opposite Party No.1 thoroughly investigated the incident and found that the minimum threshold was not met since the impact was absorbed in the crumple zone, because of which the deployment of the airbags was not necessitated. In complete disregard of the manual instructions and the findings of the above report, the Complainant made bald allegations of manufacturing defect in the vehicle without bringing any proof on record of any expert opinion to that effect. The complaint would not even remotely showcase the presence of manufacturing defect or any unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and the same was liable to be dismissed.
5. Opposite Parties 2 and 3 filed written version contending that Opposite Party No.3 was only an authorized dealer and service provider of BMW vehicles. As per the contents of the FIR and photographs, it was evident that no major injury had been suffered by the Complainants. The S.I. of Police, Thanjavur Thaluk P.S. clearly mentioned in the FIR that they had inspected the spot and found that there was no injury to anyone. It 8 was also because the passenger cabin was intact and was not damaged by the accident impact. After the accident, the vehicle was reported to the second party's servicing centre. The second party's Service Engineer immediately attended to the vehicle. Opposite Party No.2 immediately informed Opposite Party No.1 about the incident and forwarded the details of the accident to Opposite Party No.1 and briefed them about the situation. Opposite Parties 2 and 3 were only authorized dealers and service providers for the vehicles manufactured by Opposite Party No.1. As such they had no role in the present case. The Complainants dragged them only to defame them. The Complainants were informed regularly by Opposite Party No.2 on the vehicle repair status and also sought necessary approvals from the Complainant for investigation of airbag unit and prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.
6. The Opposite Party No.4 was the Insurance Company and it filed its written version submitting that the Complainant made a claim before them stating that while they were going to Thanjavur from Pondicherry in the insured vehicle for office work, a loaded truck hit the insured vehicle resulting in damage to the car and requested for settlement of the claim. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.4 had deputed IRDAI approved Surveyor and after due survey, paid an amount of Rs.15,23,000/- to the insured and Rs.8,30,000/- was paid to the Financier (Vijaykant Finance) as full and final settlement of the claim and the same was recorded in the consent form and discharge voucher. The Complainant did not raise any grievance against the Opposite Party No.4 as the claim was settled. Hence there was no deficiency of service and the complaint was liable to be dismissed in limini and prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.
7. The Complainant No.2 was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A8 are marked on behalf of the Complainants. The authorized representative of Opposite Party No.1 was examined as DW1. Ex.B1 to B10 are marked on their behalf. The AGM, Service was examined as DW2 on behalf of 9 Opposite Party No.2. The G.M. Aftersales of Opposite Party No.3 was examined as DW3. Ex.B14 to B19 are marked on behalf of Opposite Parties 2 and 3. The Senior Manager Legal, Claims of Opposite Party No.4 was examined as DW4. Ex.B11 to B13 are marked on behalf of Opposite Party No.4.
8. On considering the material on record, the District Commission framed the points for consideration as:
(a) Whether the Complainants have established deficiency of service and unfair trade practise on the part of Opposite Parties 1,2,3 and 4?
(b) Whether the Complainants are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint, if so to what relief?
and answered point (a) holding that the photographs of the damaged vehicle showed significant damage to the front portion of the vehicle and the said photographs were neither disputed nor denied by Opposite Party No.1. Admittedly, the airbags were not deployed during the collision and as such answered point (a) in favour of the Complainant and against Opposite Party No.1.
While answering point (b), the District Commission held that no documentary evidence was adduced by the Complainants to prove their claim of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical bills and Rs.1,00,000/- towards travelling expenses. As such, rejected the said claims and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards costs against Opposite Party No.1. As there was no material on record to establish deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties 2, 3 and 4, dismissed the complaint against them.
9. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the District Commission, the Opposite Party No.1 preferred this appeal contending that:
The District Commission failed to consider the relevant documents and material on record.10
The District Commission failed to consider that there was no damage caused to the passenger cabin and the passengers. The Opposite Party No.1 by way of evidence affidavit sought to explain the technology used by BMW in its vehicles but however, the District Commission ignored the said material and evidence which was placed on record and without even dealing with the submissions regarding the manner in which the airbags were designed and the circumstances surrounding their deployment/non-deployment, arrived at an unreasoned conclusion. The District Commission failed to notice that no major injuries were suffered by the Respondent No.2/Complainant. Even though the same was also recorded in the FIR, the District Commission failed to consider the same.
The District Commission without any basis directed the Appellant to pay compensation and failed in observing that the Appellant provided its support to the Respondent No.2 at every step of the investigation, despite there being no privity, the Appellant had continuously followed up with Respondents 3 and 4 and provided Respondent No.2 with regular updates with respect to the subject vehicle. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the Appellant, and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad in CC.No.03/2023 against Opposite Party No.1.
10. Notices sent twice to the Respondents 1 and 2/Complainants were returned unserved as "no such person." As such substitute service of notice was ordered and as the Respondents 1 and 2/Complainant failed to appear, the matter was decided without their presence and representation. Notices were served on Respondents 3,4 and 5 and they were represented by their counsel. The appeal was not pressed against Respondent No.6.
1111. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. There is no representation for Respondents 3 to 5. However, there is no grievance by the Appellant against them. The learned counsel for the Appellant contended that as per the photographs filed, the interiors of the vehicle and the passenger cabin including both the pillars of the vehicle were completely intact. Hence as per the design and technology of the vehicle, the impact of the collision was entirely absorbed by the crumple zone and no impact forces were passed neither inside the passenger cabin nor on to the occupants/passengers in the vehicle. The District Commission failed to consider the said aspect and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble NCDRC in Honda Cars India Ltd., Vs. Dr. Nitin Dange in FA.No.1055/2016, 2023 SCC Online NCDRC 660 on the aspect that the Consumer Commission while determining the existence of manufacturing defect must consider the technical aspects surrounding the functioning of airbag system. A bald allegation of manufacturing defect was not sufficient and that the same must be corroborated with an expert report.
12. He further relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble NCDRC in Pradeep Girishkant Mehta Vs. Neelkamal Realtors Surburban Pvt.Ltd., (NCDRC) (2023 (4) CPR 266) on the aspect that an order passed on non-consideration of relevant material ought to be set aside. He contended that the District Commission failed to consider the evidence adduced by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 and the documents marked by them.
13. He further contended that the District Commission proceeded solely on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hyundai Motor India Vs. Shailendra Bhatnagar but had not provided any reasoning or justification to conclude that the Appellant was deficient in rendering its services. The District Commission failed to take into account the factual circumstances and context in which the judgment of Hyundai was rendered and failed to provide any reasoning as to how the said judgment 12 was applicable to the facts of the present case. In the Hyundai judgment, one of the major factors for concluding that the airbags were defective was the extent of impact of the vehicle and the consequent injuries suffered by the passengers. But in the present case, unlike Hyundai, the extent of impact and its absorption was different. In the present case, both pillars (A pillar and B pillar) were intact, whereas in Hyundai, the RH front pillar was substantially damaged. The District Commission also failed to note that unlike the case in Hyundai, the impact of the accident was entirely absorbed by the crumple zone of the vehicle which was evident from the fact that there was no damage to the cabin or injuries to the passengers of the vehicle and the District Commission failed to notice that no major injuries were suffered by Respondent No.2.
14. He further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hyundai case applied the principle of Res ipsa loquitor in view of the specific facts and circumstances of the case as the impact on the vehicle could not be adequately absorbed and passengers suffered head, chest and dental injuries owing to non-deployment of airbags. The application of the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitor depends on the facts of each case. In the present case, neither there was any damage to the passenger cabin nor was there any injury caused to the passengers. The District Commission without noting the factual circumstances which necessitated the application of the aforesaid principle applied the same and directed the Appellant to pay compensation and prayed to set aside the judgment passed by the District Commission in CC.No.03/2023 against Opposite Party No.1. He also relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble NCDRC in:
Mohd.Hyder Khan Vs. Mercedes Benz India Pvt.Ltd., IV (2024) CPJ 330 (NC).
Honda Cars India Ltd., Vs. Ushat Gulgule, II (2024) CPJ 376 (NC).13
15. Now the points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the impugned order passed by the District Commission suffers from any error or illegality?
(ii) Whether the same needs to be set aside, modified or interfered with in any manner?
16. Point (i):
As seen from the facts of the case, the Respondents 1 and 2/Complainants purchased a BMW 3 series GT vehicle from the Respondent No.4 for a consideration of Rs.42,39,782/- on 20.02.2020. On 01.03.2022, when the Respondent No.2 was travelling from Pondicherry to Nagapattanam, the vehicle met with an accident on account of collision with a truck coming from the opposite direction. An FIR bearing No.157/2022 was registered by Thanjavur police. The case of the Respondents 1 and 2/Complainants was that at the time of accident, the airbags were not deployed causing injuries to the passengers of the vehicle and that the same would amount to deficiency of service and lodged the complaint before the District Commission on 30.12.2022. The contention of the Appellants/Opposite Party No.1 was that the airbags in the vehicle were not deployed since the impact on the vehicle was appropriately absorbed by the crumple zone which was designed in such a way that in the event of an accident the load would be reduced significantly.
17. As seen from the written statement filed by the Appellants/Opposite Party No.1, the airbag restrain system (ACSM-Advanced Crash Safety Module) was aligned precisely to the deformation behaviour of the body of the vehicle as well as acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle with the help of airbag sensors. The function of the Crash Safety Module is to constantly evaluate all airbag sensor signals in order to identify a crash situation. On the basis of the sensor signals and their evaluation, the Crash Safety Module identifies the direction of the crash and the severity of the impact. The Crash Safety Module evaluates the sensor information 14 and then initiates the relevant measures for selective activation of the necessary restrain systems i.e., the airbags and seat belt tensioners. That the said belt is also a restraint system which was secured to the vehicle body and which holds the occupants in their seats in the event of abrupt vehicle deceleration and therefore prevents them from being thrown around or out of the passenger compartment. That the seat belts were the primary restraint system for all occupants. The seat belts were equipped as standard with belt force limiters in order to minimize the load forces acting in the thoracic region of occupants in a severe collision.
18. The Appellants had also filed the owner's manual of BMW 3 series marked under Ex.B3 which was handed over to the customers at the time of purchase of vehicle. The said owner's manual states that airbags were not deployed in every situation and were deployed only when active safety components (such as seat belts) were no longer sufficient to protect the passengers as per the vehicle intelligence system. The Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 had also filed the owner's manual of vehicles manufactured by other manufacturers such as Audi and Mercedes marked under Ex.B7 and B8 to show that similar technology is present in the said vehicles also. The photographs filed by the Complainant as well as marked by Opposite Party No.1 under Ex.A7 and B5 along with video provided by the Complainant would disclose that the interiors of the vehicle was completely intact and the impact of the collision was entirely absorbed by the crumple zone. As the airbags are not designed to deploy in every collision and they are calibrated to deploy only when the impact exceeds a pre-set deceleration threshold when the force is within a particular angle/direction (usually frontal impact) and deployment would reduce injury risk, not increase it. Then non-deployment is consistent with design and not a defect.
19. The burden of proof lies on the Complainant to prove that there was a defect in the vehicle safety system or deficiency in service i.e., failure to 15 perform as promised. But in the present case, the Complainant failed to file any expert evidence like accident reconstruction, ECU data or technical report. No medical evidence of injury was filed by him to show that the impact met the deployment criteria. Bare allegation is not sufficient. The fact that no injuries were sustained by the Complainant strongly supports the case of the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 that the safety system functioned properly and the airbag deployment was not required. In fact, unnecessary deployment can itself cause harm. If the system behaved as per engineering specifications, it cannot be termed deficient. Airbag non-deployment per se is not a proof of defect. The Complainant must show that the impact condition warranted deployment and that the failure was due to defect and not design limitation. In the absence of any cogent technical or medical evidence demonstrating that the impact was of such magnitude as to necessitate deployment of airbags, and that the non-deployment was due to a manufacturing defect or malfunction, mere non-deployment cannot be construed as deficiency in service. The material on record rather indicates that the safety system operated within its designed parameters.
20. The Hon'ble NCDRC in Mohd. Hyder Khan Vs. Mercedes-Benz India Pvt.Ltd., & Others held that:
"(7): ........ The appellant's case that the air bags failed to deploy due to a manufacturing defect in the vehicle has not been established through any Expert Opinion as required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. On the contrary, there is evidence by way of affidavit brought on record by the respondent that the seat belt had not been used which has also not been controverted. As per the Owner's Manual, the seat belt is required to be fastened for the air bags to deploy in case of an accident. As per the affidavit of the Service Manager of respondent no.2, the belt was not fastened. This evidence is not controverted. The cause of accident, as per the report of the Police, was due to rash and negligent driving and therefore the contention of the appellant that the air bags failed to deploy due to a manufacturing defect in the vehicle cannot be sustained. Reliance of the appellant on the ratio based on the principle of res ipsa loquitor laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme 16 Court in Shailendra Bhatnagar cannot be considered in the light of the arguments of the respondent relying upon Desh Bandhu Gupta."
21. In Honda Cars India Limited Vs. Ushat Gulgule, the Hon'ble NCDRC, while considering whether the non-deployment of the airbags constituted a manufacturing defect warranting the invoking of the doctrine of punitive damages as claimed by the Respondent (Complainant) held that:
"(8): ............ 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."
"(10): The ratio decidendi in Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (supra), is based on a SRS report brought on record by the appellant himself as noted in the order. The description of the accident and the nature of impact is that the car was travelling at 100 kmph speed on the highway and had to suddenly apply brakes due to a truck in the front applying its brake all of a sudden resulting in substantial frontal damage when the airbags failed to deploy. The State Commission took the view that the principle of res ipsa loquiter applied and in view of the concurrent findings of the State and National Commissions that expert opinion was not necessary, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the safety standards fell short of the expected quality. The facts of the instant case are distinguishable in that the nature of the accident and collision is not one of a car travelling at high speed on the highway."
22. In Honda Cars India Limited Vs. Dr.Nitin Dange also, the Hon'be NCDRC consistently held that:
"(10): As far as the manufacturing defect is concerned, no expert report or any other document has been placed on record to prove that the car had manufacturing defect and only on the bare statement, it cannot be said that the vehicle had manufacturing defect. At the time of passing of the State Commission's Order, the same car was being driven by the complainant. As regards the point of opening of airbag at the time of accident is concerned, it is admitted by the complainant that the speed of the vehicle at the time of accident is about 10 - 15 kms. per hour and the airbag deployment mechanism/logics are designed to deploy them in case of extreme collisions, which includes offset collision with an oncoming vehicle and impact of stationary 17 obstacle and if the rate of deceleration is high enough, the control unit will instantly inflate the driver's and front airbags."
23. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant, facts of the case in Hyundai Motor India Vs. Shailendra Bhatnagar, would disclose that the Hyundai Car in the said case met with a substantial damage to its RH front pillar, RH front roof, side body panels, front RH door panels and LH front wheel suspension and due to the non- deployment of the airbags at the time of collision, the Complainant suffered head, chest and also dental injuries. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that - the impact of the collision was such that it would have been reasonable for the Respondent to assume that there would have been deployment of the airbags. The safety description of the goods fell short of its expected quality. The contents of the owner's manual does not carry any material from which the owner of a vehicle could be alerted that in a collision of this nature, the airbags would not deploy. The failure to provide an airbag system which would meet the safety standards as perceived by a car buyer of reasonable prudence, in our view, should be subject to punitive damages which can have deterrent effect.
24. But in the present case, the FIR marked under Ex.A2 would state that no major injuries were suffered by the Complainant or any of the passengers. But the District Commission failed to take note of the same. There is also difference in the technical specification, categories and make of both the vehicles Hyundai and BMW. The standard of proof considered in Hyundai cannot be squarely applied to the present case. Unlike in Hyundai case, the accident, impact and its absorption were different in the present matter. In the present case, both pillars of the vehicle were intact, but in Hyundai 18 the RH front pillar was substantially damaged. Unlike the case in Hyundai, the impact on the vehicle herein was entirely absorbed by the crumple zone of the vehicle which was evident from the fact that there was no damage to the cabin or injuries sustained to the passengers of the vehicle. As such mere non-deployment of airbags does not establish defect, when the system functioned within the programmed parameters.
25. The Complainant alleged to have sustained injuries but failed to produce any medical evidence and failed to show that any loss was sustained by him due to non-deployment. No expert report/technical data is produced by the Complainant and no evidence of impact severity is placed. No medical proof of injury is also filed by the Complainant. The explanation provided by the Appellant/Opposite Party that the impact did not cross crumple zone/deployment threshold remain un-rebutted. Thus the Complainant failed to establish defect or deficiency.
26. The District Commission proceeded on the assumption that airbags must deploy in every accident. Such reasoning is contrary to settled technical principles and contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble NCDRC. The finding of defect is thus based on presumption rather than proof and as such is unsustainable.
27. Point No.(ii):
As such, we consider it fit to allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission-I, Hyderabad in 19 CC.No.03/2023 dated 08.04.2024 by dismissing the complaint. No order as to costs.
The Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited to the credit of this appeal together with accrued interest, if any, after lapse of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Court on this the .... day of April,2026.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER-NJ MEMBER-NJ
Dt: 17.04.2026
UC*