In a significant ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed Toyota Kirloskar Motors and Nandi Toyota Motor World to compensate Sunil Reddy, a Toyota Innova owner, for a defective airbag failure during an accident. The commission has given the car manufacturer two options: either refund Rs 15 lakh with 9% interest or provide a new Toyota Innova to Reddy, more than 12 years after the unfortunate incident.
Reddy's ordeal began when his newly purchased Toyota Innova VX Diesel 7-Seater model was involved in an accident on August 16, 2011, near Ulindakonda village in Andhra Pradesh. Despite the severity of the collision, the front airbags failed to deploy, resulting in injuries to all occupants.
Upon sending a legal notice and receiving no satisfactory response from the company, Reddy pursued the matter through the District Consumer Forum. Following several hearings, the District Forum ruled in Reddy's favor in 2014, ordering Toyota to either replace the vehicle or refund the purchase amount along with compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.
Toyota contested the ruling, citing that the collision was a side impact, not a frontal one, and thus, the airbags did not deploy as intended. Despite this defense, both the State Consumer Commission and NCDRC upheld the District Forum's decision, emphasizing that evidence indicated a frontal collision.
Expert testimonies presented before NCDRC further supported Reddy's claims, with conflicting accounts from experts employed by both parties. Ultimately, NCDRC concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly favored Reddy's assertion of a frontal collision, warranting compensation from Toyota.
In its ruling dated February 16, 2024, NCDRC upheld the orders of the lower forums, directing Toyota to comply within 30 days. Failure to do so would incur joint and severe liabilities for both Toyota Kirloskar Motors and Nandi Toyota Motor World.
The case underscores the significance of consumer protection laws in addressing grievances related to product defects, with legal experts emphasizing that failure to address manufacturing defects constitutes a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. For Reddy, the NCDRC's decision marks a long-awaited resolution to his legal battle against automotive negligence.
Also Read: Top 7 Toyota Cars In India