Bajaj Motorcycle Brake Failure: Consumer Commission Awards Compensation for Manufacturing Defect
Pranav B Prem
In a significant ruling, the Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Bajaj Auto Ltd. liable for selling a vehicle that suffered from a manufacturing defect, which resulted in an accident causing permanent physical disability to a young consumer. The Commission awarded Rs. 7.5 lakhs in compensation and Rs. 10,000 as costs to the complainant, Rahul M.R., considering the severity of the injury and its long-term impact on his career and life.
The complaint arose after the complainant, a 20-year-old student and budding cricketer, purchased a Bajaj Pulsar NS 200 ABS motorcycle for Rs. 1,57,746 from Grand Motors, Thrissur. On March 19, 2018, while riding the motorcycle, the rear brake pedal suddenly broke, causing the complainant to suffer serious injuries to his right foot. Medical intervention led to the amputation of the distal phalanx of the third toe and required skin grafting from his thigh. Despite approaching the dealer for free repairs citing a defect, the request was denied. Consequently, the complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service and a latent manufacturing defect.
The manufacturer and its dealers (collectively referred to as the opposite parties) denied the allegations, asserting that the accident might have resulted from misuse or adventure riding and that the vehicle had no inherent defects. They also raised the issue of non-joinder of the insurance company, arguing that any accident claim should have been directed to the insurer. They further claimed that no complaint regarding the pedal breakage had been made during servicing and that the complainant had driven over 6000 km, which indicated no manufacturing fault.
Rejecting these arguments, the Commission held that the presence of the insurance company was not necessary, as the crux of the complaint involved a manufacturing defect and not an insurance dispute. The bench observed that if a manufacturing defect is established, it cannot void the vehicle’s warranty, nor does it absolve the manufacturer of liability.
To establish the defect, the Commission relied on a report by an independent expert who thoroughly inspected the motorcycle. The expert confirmed that the right-hand footstep and brake pedal holder bracket was fractured, and the rear portion holding the brake pedal was entirely missing. The report concluded that the fracture was not due to external impact or accident but stemmed from a micro-crack formed during manufacturing. The crack had progressively worsened with each application of the brake, eventually leading to its failure. The expert categorically ruled out the possibility of the damage resulting from misuse or hitting any object, noting the absence of other structural damage and the brittle nature of the fracture.
The Commission emphasized that the opposite parties failed to counter the expert’s findings with any evidence, nor did they cross-examine the expert or the doctor who treated the complainant. The claim that the vehicle had traveled over 6000 km was also disproven by the expert report, which showed only 5138 km on the odometer at the time of inspection. Furthermore, all other components of the vehicle were found to be in good condition, affirming that the defect was localized and not indicative of general wear and tear.
In terms of impact, the Commission accepted the doctor’s testimony that the loss of the toe tip would hinder the complainant’s movement, particularly his ability to run—an important aspect for someone pursuing sports. It further noted that the injury would affect career options requiring physical efficiency, such as roles in the army or police. While no percentage of disability was officially certified, the bench concluded that the injury amounted to a permanent disability, significantly affecting the complainant’s mobility and quality of life.
The deficiency in service was squarely placed on Bajaj Auto Ltd., the manufacturer, for selling a vehicle with an innate structural flaw, while its dealers were exonerated from liability. The Commission found Bajaj Auto solely liable and directed it to pay Rs. 7,50,000 as compensation for the physical and financial loss, mental agony, and hardship, and Rs. 10,000 as costs, along with 4% interest per annum from the date of the complaint until realization.
Cause Title: Rahul vs Bajaj Auto Ltd.
Case No: CC 226/ 2018
Coram: Sri. C.T. Sabu [President], Smt. Sreeja. S [Member], Sri. Ram Mohan R [Member]
