A consumer complaint alleging a faulty airbag system in a luxury SUV has been dismissed after the adjudicating forum accepted the manufacturer’s technical explanation for the non-deployment of the driver’s airbag during a collision with a nilgai near Greater Noida.
The dispute centred on a Range Rover Autobiography involved in a December 2013 accident when the animal suddenly leapt onto the road. The impact caused substantial damage to the front of the vehicle. While the passenger-side airbag deployed—despite the seat being empty—the driver’s airbag did not, prompting the vehicle owners to claim a manufacturing defect. They sought replacement of the vehicle along with ₹5 crore as compensation for alleged trauma and losses.
The Commission, however, found no evidence of any defect in the airbag mechanism. It noted that the passenger airbag had functioned as designed, which undermined the allegation that the sensor system itself was faulty. If there had been an inherent manufacturing defect, the panel observed, the passenger airbag would likely not have deployed either.
The manufacturer relied on crash data retrieved from the vehicle’s Restraint Control Module. Analysis of the data revealed that the driver was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident, while the passenger seatbelt was unfastened. The company explained that the airbag system operates with different deployment thresholds depending on seatbelt usage: a higher threshold applies when the occupant is belted, and a lower one when the seatbelt is not in use.
According to this explanation, the collision did not generate sufficient force to cross the higher threshold required for deploying the driver’s airbag. Conversely, the lower threshold applicable to an unbelted passenger seat triggered deployment on that side. The Commission found this technical reasoning consistent with the recorded crash data and noted that the complainants had not produced any independent expert evidence to challenge it.
The panel also remarked that although the owner’s manual did not detail the varying deployment thresholds linked to seatbelt usage, that omission alone could not establish a manufacturing defect. Additional factors weighed against the complainants: the vehicle had already been repaired through insurance, and the accident occurred after the expiry of the manufacturer’s warranty.
Finding no deficiency in service or defect in the vehicle, the Commission dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
