Emphasising that any allegation of a manufacturing defect must be supported by substantial evidence established through any expert opinion as required under section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The NCDRC was adjudicating the matter titled Mohd. Hyder Khan v. Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited & Anr., which involved allegations of a manufacturing defect related to airbag deployment.
The Commission's judgment highlighted several key principles regarding product liability and vehicle safety.
The Commission emphasized that seatbelts are the primary safety devices in vehicles, and airbags are designed to deploy only when the seatbelt is worn. Further, stating that proving a manufacturing defect requires expert testimony to establish the cause of the alleged defect.
The Commission reaffirmed the requirement under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, which mandates the inspection of alleged defective goods before a judgment can be made while adding that the principle of res ipsa loquitor (The thing speaks for itself) cannot be applied without clear facts on record.
Further, The Commission clarified that vehicle deformation alone is insufficient to infer a defect or trigger airbag deployment, given the role of crumple zones in absorbing impact.
The judgment has set important precedents for product liability cases in India, particularly those involving complex technical issues such as vehicle safety mechanisms.
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
