JSA Advocates & Solicitors (JSA) has successfully represented Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. (“MB India”) in defending a consumer complaint alleging manufacturing defect in a Mercedes-Benz E-250 (“Vehicle”), filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (“Commission”).
While dismissing the complaint and rejecting all allegations of manufacturing defect, the Commission has conclusively held that: (a) mere non-deployment of airbags in an accident, by itself, does not establish a manufacturing defect; and (b) such allegations ought to be supported by cogent technical evidence.
M.G.G. Trading Pvt. Ltd. (“Complainant”) filed a consumer complaint against MB India alleging that the Vehicle met with an accident and collided with the rear of a container lorry. However, none of the airbags deployed during the accident; and therefore, that there was either a manufacturing defect in the Vehicle, or there were no airbags installed in the Vehicle at all. The Complainant further alleged that the authorised dealer (“Dealer”) had issued an inferior insurance policy to the Complainant than what was initially promised.
Basis these allegations, the Complainant prayed for a (i) direction to MB India and the Dealer to pay a sum of INR 75,00,000/- as compensation for alleged losses suffered owing to purchase of a defective Vehicle; (ii) direction to pay a sum of INR 2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, stress, sufferings, hardship, trauma, monetary loss, etc.; and (iii) direction to the Dealer to pay a sum of INR 2,30,000/- towards loss suffered due to the alleged issuance of wrong insurance policy.
MB India refuted these allegations and asserted that although the Complainant has made an allegation of manufacturing defect, it has not adduced any evidence in support thereof. Rather, the allegation is premised solely on guesswork and speculation. MB India also relied, inter alia, on a technical report prepared by an expert which had conclusively held that the accident impacted only softer portions of the Vehicle (i.e. the crumple zone); there was no need for the airbags to deploy; and further, that the safety systems of the Vehicle functioned as designed.
Accepting the submissions advanced by MB India, the Commission dismissed the complaint and crystallised the below key principles:
- Mere non-deployment of airbags, without more, cannot be elevated to proof of defect or non-installation of airbags.
- Visible damage in an accident to the front fascia, hood or bumper of a vehicle cannot be equated with the requisite forces for airbag activation.
- The expectation that a consumer could visually identify airbags in an undeployed condition is not grounded in engineering reality, and legal proof of defect cannot rest on such subjective perception.
- Speculative assertions regarding hypothetical injury risks cannot be a substitute for concrete proof.
- Emotional appeal to hypothetical risk, subjective inference based on visual absence of airbags or reliance on photographs of external damage cannot substitute for technical proof.
- Where the allegation of manufacturing defect rests solely on personal understanding of the complainant, derived from the visible damage to the vehicle, such allegation cannot, logically or technically, confirm defect or non-installation of airbags.
- The complainant bears the onus of proving a manufacturing defect and mere assertions, photographs or speculative impressions cannot substitute for formal, technical or expert evidence and allegations of defect must be evidentially anchored in demonstrable fact, particularly where the product involves sophisticated engineering mechanisms such as a supplemental restraint system.
- A manufacturing defect must be proved by cogent evidence, ordinarily through expert testimony, which is generally required where the defect alleged is technical in nature. The requirement of expert evidence may be dispensed with where facts are self-evident. However, the existence of a technical report explaining non-deployment renders the matter no longer self-evident, thereby necessitating rebuttal by expert evidence.
- Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CPA”), affords a complainant the right to refer the product to an appropriate testing or research centre notified under the CPA for independent expert evaluation of alleged defects. It is not a mere procedural formality; rather, it embodies a substantive right of the consumer to have an objective and independent assessment of a suspected defect. Omission to exercise such statutory right constitutes a deliberate non-exhaustion of a clearly available procedural channel.
- The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be mechanically applied to override credible and unrebutted technical evidence. Such doctrine applies only where the factual matrix permits a reasonable inference of defect, such as the presence of actual injuries or uncontroverted evidence of frontal impact sufficient to trigger safety systems.
- A consumer’s entitlement to relief under the CPA, presupposes the existence of material misrepresentation, coercion or deprivation of choice, which would vitiate the voluntariness of the transaction. When the complainant knowingly and voluntarily accepts a contractual option, the law will not permit subsequent claims predicated on dissatisfaction with that choice. The allegation cannot be sustained merely on the basis of post hoc regret or hypothetical preference.
Applying the above principles, the Commission held that (i) the Complainant failed to discharge the burden imposed by law to prove a manufacturing defect; (ii) the technical report relied upon by MB India remained unchallenged, became determinative and conclusively established proper functioning of the safety systems; (iii) the Complainant’s omission to avail the statutory right under Section 13(1)(c) of the CPA for independent evaluation, critically undermines the credibility of its claim and weighs heavily against any assertion of manufacturing defect; (iv) the Complainant’s failure to even attempt preservation or presentation of the Vehicle for independent testing underscores a lack of due diligence; (v) the insurance-related allegations were untenable in light of the Complainant’s informed and voluntary selection of policy and there is no evidence to suggest any misrepresentation, compulsion or concealment by the Dealer; (vi) no element of unfair trade practice has been established by the Complainant. The complaint was thus dismissed as being devoid of any merit.
This decision reinforces that (i) technically complex product liability claims must be grounded in scientific and engineering evidence and not based on inference or perception; (ii) allegations of manufacturing defect must be established by cogent evidence and cannot be based on ipse dixit. The decision also clarifies and dispels several misconceptions concerning functioning of airbags.
The matter was argued by Sidharth Sethi, Partner.
The JSA Disputes team was led by Mr. Sidharth Sethi, Partner with support from Sai Barath, Senior Associate; Shivangi Pathak, Associate; Ancy Jacob, Associate; and Dharaniya Sri K.M., Associate.
Sidharth’s practice covers diverse corporate commercial litigation, arbitration and alternative dispute resolution. He also advises and acts for clients in insolvency proceedings, global product liability litigations, constitutional & administrative law litigations, proceedings related to penal laws, white-collar crimes and corporate and forensic investigations.