The Court upheld a ₹5 lakh fine for non-deployment of airbags, and an additional ₹5 lakh fine for the failure of Mercedes Benz to disclose the limits of the functioning of its airbag features.
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.
