Commission upholds compensation for airbag non-deployment
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has upheld a district forum's order directing Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd to pay Rs 5 lakh in compensation to a Chandigarh resident whose XUV500's airbags failed to deploy during a road accident. The commission also dismissed the automaker's appeal and awarded the complainant an additional Rs 35,000 as litigation costs.
The complainant, Chander Mohan Duggal, a resident of Sector 42, Chandigarh, suffered severe injuries when his XUV500 collided with a truck on a national highway on February 8, 2022. Poor visibility due to fog contributed to the accident, which caused major damage to the vehicle. Duggal alleged that the airbags did not open despite the severity of the crash, leading to injuries that ultimately required the amputation of his ring finger.
Vehicle purchased for safety features
Duggal stated that he had purchased the XUV500 for Rs 14.50 lakh, specifically relying on its advertised airbag safety features. The failure of the airbags to deploy, he argued, directly caused his injuries. The amputation of his ring finger affected his professional work, as he could no longer use the finger for typing tasks, impacting his livelihood.
After recovering from the initial shock and injuries, Duggal raised the issue with Mahindra & Mahindra, but the company failed to resolve the matter. He then approached the District Consumer Commission, which on April 24, 2025, ordered the manufacturer to pay Rs 5 lakh in compensation.
Manufacturer's appeal dismissed
Mahindra & Mahindra filed an appeal before the State Commission, arguing that the district forum had not sought an expert opinion to determine whether the non-deployment of airbags was due to a manufacturing defect or because the crash did not meet the severity threshold outlined in the vehicle owner's manual. The company contended that without such expertise, the finding of a defect was premature.
After hearing both sides, the State Commission held that the district forum had correctly directed the manufacturer to pay compensation. The commission noted that Duggal had also sought enhancement of the compensation, citing the permanent disability caused by the amputation and its impact on his performance at work and daily activities. However, the commission did not increase the compensation amount but awarded Rs 35,000 towards litigation expenses and dismissed the manufacturer's appeal.
Impact on consumer rights
The case underscores the importance of product liability and consumer protection in the automotive industry. The commission's decision reinforces the principle that manufacturers must ensure safety features function as advertised. The failure of airbags to deploy in a crash that caused significant damage and personal injury was deemed a deficiency in service, warranting compensation.
Duggal's injuries, including the loss of his ring finger, highlight the real-world consequences of safety feature failures. The commission's ruling provides a measure of justice for the victim and serves as a warning to automakers about the legal repercussions of such failures.
