Click the Play button to listen to article

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Ford India challenging concurrent orders of consumer fora directing refund of the price of a Ford EcoSport vehicle whose airbag safety system largely failed to deploy in a serious accident, holding that a manufacturing defect of this nature can be inferred from the circumstances without a mandatory laboratory test.

Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa said, "Section 13(1)(c) of the Act comes into operation where the alleged defect is of such a nature that it cannot be determined without proper analysis or test. It is only upon satisfaction of this condition that the statutory requirement of obtaining a sample and sending it to an appropriate laboratory or for test, become obligatory. The provision does not mandate that in case of every allegation of defect, it must necessarily be established by evidence of an expert. A patent defect or failure, which can reasonably be inferred from the established circumstances, does not require a laboratory analysis merely because the product has a sophisticated mechanism."

In the present case, finding of manufacturing defect is not based merely on the basis of the assertion of respondent No.1 that airbags failed to deploy. Consumer fora have taken into consideration the totality of the surrounding circumstances. It has been proved that the vehicle struck a divider and tumbled over causing a severe damage to the vehicle. Vehicle was equipped with six airbags but only two airbags deployed. The other four, including the front driver-side/dashboard airbag, did not deploy and the driver of vehicle suffered grievous injuries. Two out of these six airbags admittedly deployed, while remaining four failed, the Court added.

The bench emphasised that, "District Forum and the State Commission considered these circumstances sufficient to infer failure of the safety system. State Commission expressly invoked res ipsa loquitur. National Commission independently considered and rejected the defense raised by the manufacturer. These concurrent findings are based on material on the record and cannot be interfered in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

The consumer-respondent had purchased a Ford EcoSport for ₹10,42,776 on 01.07.2015. On 27.05.2016, the vehicle struck a road divider on the Pathankot-Amritsar G.T. Road and turned turtle. Of the vehicle's six airbags, only the two on the right side of the driver's seat deployed, the front-side airbag and three on the left side failed — and the driver suffered severe injuries.

Alleging a manufacturing defect and failure of the safety system, the consumer filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar, which allowed the complaint on 14.03.2017, directing the manufacturer and dealer to jointly and severally refund the vehicle's price (against its transfer) along with compensation and costs. This was upheld by the State Commission on 13.07.2017, and further upheld by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 02.04.2026, prompting the present writ petition.

Counsel for Ford India argued that a finding of manufacturing defect could not be returned without an expert opinion or laboratory test under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the SRS airbag system is technically sophisticated, with deployment depending on the direction, angle and severity of impact; and that the owner's manual itself clarified airbags are not designed to deploy in every collision or roll-over — meaning the consumer fora's failure to follow this statutory procedure rendered the concurrent findings unsustainable.

The Court noted the finding of manufacturing defect below was not based merely on the bare assertion that airbags failed to deploy, but on the totality of circumstances: the vehicle struck a divider and tumbled over, causing severe damage; of six airbags, only two deployed, with the front driver-side/dashboard airbag among those that failed, and the driver suffered grievous injuries. The State Commission had expressly invoked res ipsa loquitur, and the National Commission had independently examined and rejected the manufacturer's defence. The Court held these concurrent findings, being based on material on record, could not be interfered with under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of Article 226.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, (2023) 14 SCC 628, where the Court held that a consumer purchasing an airbag-fitted vehicle would ordinarily assume deployment upon frontal collision, and that "a consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics calculating the impact of a collision on the theories based on velocity and force", the Bench in the light of the same held:

"Striking of the vehicle with a road divider and its turning turtle is not disputed. There was an extensive damage to the vehicle on all the four sides and with such an impact, all the six airbags should have deployed. Non-functioning of the airbags in the case of such severe impact clearly reflects a failure of the safety system and a manufacturing defect in the vehicle."

On the owner's manual argument, the Court noted this very plea had been specifically raised before and rejected by the National Commission as "unsupported by convincing material," and held that the petitioner was, in substance, seeking a re-appraisal of factual and technical contentions already urged and rejected below — an exercise the Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be converted into an appellate one to undertake.

Finding no patent perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest failure of justice in the National Commission's judgment, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Ray, Advocate, Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate and Mr. Srijan Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Title: Ford India Private Limited v. Shri Yogesh Jain and others

Click here to read order

Tags: