Consumer protection: No manufacturing defect, no liability on carmaker

The National Commission in A1 Fauz International vs Audi India & Another held that the airbags failed to deploy not due to manufacturing defect, but because the truck did not have rear protection

A1 Fauz International purchased an Audi A6 car for the personal use of its partner, Mahmood Alam. The vehicle was manufactured by Audi India, a division of Volkswagen, and was purchased from an authorised dealer on March 8, 2013, for a 

sum of ₹47,10,000. 

On May 30, 2013, three partners of Fauz International were travelling from Kanpur to New Delhi. The vehicle was moving at a speed of 80 to 100 kilometres per hour when it crashed into a lorry. In spite of the brakes being applied, the car was badly damaged —especially the bonnet, roof, entire left side, and the rear windshield. Shahnawaz Ahmed, one of the partners, died in the accident. 

The customer immediately informed Audi about the accident. The manufacturer promised that a technical team would be sent, which arrived only after persistent follow-up. The vehicle was taken to Audi’s workshop in Lucknow, which opined that certain parts needed to be replaced to make the vehicle roadworthy. These would have to be imported from Germany. 

The customer filed a complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, naming Audi India and Audi Germany as joint respondents. It was alleged that the vehicle had inherent manufacturing defects, as the brakes failed to function and the airbags did not deploy during the accident, leading to a fatality. 

The customer further pointed out that the manufacturers had issued a worldwide recall of about 102,000 Audi vehicles of various models between 2013 and 2015 due to airbag-related issues. 

  Audi contested the complaint. It raised a technical defence that the complaint was not maintainable on the ground that the vehicle was purchased for a commercial purpose by a business entity. On merits, it denied the existence of any manufacturing defect and asserted that all vehicles undergo stringent quality checks. Audi contended that the airbag mechanism gets triggered only when the head-on impact crosses a specific threshold. 

In this case, according to Audi, the car had crashed under the truck, causing the top of the bonnet to bear the impact. It was not a direct frontal collision, and therefore the airbag mechanism was not activated. 

Audi blamed the truck for not installing any rear protection. It argued that it could not be held liable in the absence of any manufacturing defect.

 

The National Commission, relying on several precedents, including the Supreme Court’s judgment in Daimler Chrysler India Pvt Ltd vs Controls and Switchgear Company Ltd & Anr, held that the customer qualified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act since the vehicle was purchased for the personal use of a partner and not for profit-making purposes. 

The National Commission observed that if the vehicle manual did not contain any information on the extent and severity of impact required to trigger the airbag safety mechanism, it would constitute an unfair and deceptive trade practice. In such circumstances, the doctrine of res ipsa  loquitur (the facts speak for themselves) could be invoked. 

The failure of the airbag mechanism while the vehicle was under warranty could be taken as indicative of a manufacturing defect and a breach of safety standards. However, in this case, the commission found no breach of safety standards by the manufacturer. It concluded that the airbags failed to deploy not due to any defect but because of negligence on the part of the truck, which had not installed rear protection. 

Accordingly, by its order dated May 16, 2025, delivered by Subhash Chandra for the Bench along with J  Rajendra, the complaint was dismissed.

 

The writer is a consumer activist