Bajaj Auto Liable For Selling Vehicle With Manufacturing Defects Causing Accident ;Thrissur District Commission

Brief facts:

The complainant purchased a Motor cycle- “BAJAJ PULSAR NS 200 ABS” ('vehicle') from Grand Motors, Guruvayoor road, Thrissur ('1st dealer') manufactured by Bajaj Auto Ltd. ('manufacturer') for a sum of Rs. 1,57,746/–. The vehicle had a Chassis number & Engine No. JLYCHG17445 and the registration certificate recorded the name of Grand Motors, Thiruvanikavu temple as its dealer. (' 2nd dealer').

On 19.03.2018 while riding the vehicle, the complainant applied the brakes and thereupon the brake pedal broke resulting in several injuries to the complainant. Pursuant to the injuries, the doctor informed the complainant that his distal phalanx of the 3rd toe of his right foot got amputated and was repaired on the same day by grafting skin from his right thigh. The complainant footed a bill worth Rs. 27,593/- as hospital expenses and Rs. 10,000 as other expenses. As per the complainant, he got to know about a manufacturing defect in the vehicle from a mechanic due to which the brake pedal broke.

The complainant approached the 1st dealer seeking to repair the vehicle free of cost on account of manufacturing defects. However, the request was denied by the 1st dealer stating that the accident might have occurred due to some adventurous activities undertaken by the complainant. Thus, the complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the dealers and the manufacturer praying for appropriate compensation.

The manufacturer and the dealers are referred to as the 'Opposite parties'.

Submissions of Opposite parties:

The opposite parties denied any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was submitted that when the vehicle was brought to the service station after the accident, no complaint regarding breakage of brake pedal was reported. It was further submitted that any accident claims can be raised only against the insurance company. It was argued that the complainant failed to provide any expert report regarding the alleged manufacturing defect and the vehicle has been extensively used by the complainant covering up to 6000 Km which shows that there is no manufacturing defect.

Observations of the Commission:

The commission examined the documents filed by the complainant including the invoices and registration certificate establishing the sale of the vehicle. The bench also took note of the report submitted by an expert appointed by it.

Issue 1: Whether the complaint is bad for not making the insurance company a party to the complaint?

On this issue, the bench observed if the manufacturing defect is proved to be the reason of the accident then it cannot void the warranty provided to the vehicle. It was further observed that the major dispute in the complaint is the manufacturing defect in the vehicle hence, the presence of insurer was not essential. Thus, the complaint was held to be not bad by the bench.

Issue 2: Whether the manufacturing defect is proved and whether the accident occurred because of the defect?

The bench examined the findings of the expert report wherein it was observed that the side footstep and break pedal holder bracket of the vehicle was found fractured. The report further stated that the rear end of the bracket together with break pedal was missing. The expert report concluded that the step holder of the bracket originally suffered a micro crack at the location where the fracture occurred and such micro-crack grew gradually each time with the application of brake. It was observed that the expert has logically come to a conclusion that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect.

The contention of the opposite parties that the vehicle was extensively used and therefore does not have any manufacturing defect was also held to be baseless by the bench since the defect was found only with respect to step holder bracket of the vehicle. Consequently, it was concluded that the cleavage of the step holder bracket was the direct and proximate reason for the accident that had inflicted injury to the complainant.

Since, the opposite parties failed to rebut the findings of the expert report and also failed to produce any evidence in support of its submissions, the bench held that the vehicle innately suffered from a manufacturing defect and the defect was the reason for the accident.

Issue 3: Whether there is deficiency of service and the agony, disability and hardship suffered by the complainant is proved?

The bench examined the doctor who performed the surgery on the complainant's right toe and the relevant documents and observed that it may make the complainant partially incapable of actuating his movements. It was further observed that no contention has been raised by the opposite parties regarding the injuries nor did they cross examine the doctor. Hence, it was held that the injury to the complainant is permanent.

The bench also held that selling a vehicle with parts having innate manufacturing defects is certainly a deficiency in service causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Thus, only the manufacturer was held liable and the dealer associates of the manufacturer were exonerated by the Commission.

On the issue of compensation, at the outset it was observed that the complainant has lost the tip of the 3^rd toe of his right foot which would restrain his movements. It was observed that the complainant being a cricket enthusiast, the disability will affect his capability to run. The bench further observed that since the complainant is in his young age, the damage which may be imparted in respect of his future prospects cannot be ascertained.

It went on to observe that there are certain career options which require candidates to prove their physical efficiency including their ability to cover specified distances by running in a specified time. Thus, the injury was held to have inflicted damages which are non-pecuniary in nature causing inconvenience, hardship, discomfort and mental stress.

Hence, the complaint was allowed with the following reliefs:

1. A compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- for permanent disability, financial loss and hardship
2. Rs. 10,000 as costs

The commission held only the manufacturer- Bajaj Auto liable and the complaint was dismissed against its associate dealers i.e other opposite parties.

Case Title: Rahul vs Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Case Number: CC 226/ 2018

Date of Decision: 09.07.2025

Click here to read/download the order