[anilp]

At the other end of the spectrum you have the geniuses at Maruti. I'm speechless...

http://indianexpress.com/article/bus...-maruti-chief/

[amitk26]

Good decision, but I am appalled at the sum. 25 Lakh for a Vehicle costing 27? No damages awarded? Should be 10X to 50X of the product value specially if it involves death.

SC spends a lot of time in various matters such as delay in cleaning of Ganga or type of fuel to be used in NCR. Maybe they should spend a little time in providing a jurisprudence on the punitive financial damages as well.

[columbus]

Originally Posted by StarScream

This is actually one case where I'm inclined to side with the car maker, based on the facts in the story alone.

According to the story, there was no frontal collision with a pole - "The manufacturer had argued that since the SUV toppled over and did not have a frontal impact, its airbags did not open." The Fortuner has no side airbags so the front airbags not deploying is a smokescreen. Also it doesn't say how the driver died. Perhaps he hit his head against the side of the car. In that case, how will a front airbag help?

But it's good to know that a big car maker can be brought to its heels in India by naming the directors in the case!

Please read the story carefuly. I am reproducing here what is written in that article.

The SUV had allegedly rammed into a pole before toppling over.

The manufacturer had argued that since the SUV toppled over and did not have a frontal impact, its airbags did not open.

Tankha agreed to Toyota's offer of Rs 15 lakh to the driver's family and Rs 10 lakh to the owner with interest from the date of accident.

It says that the car rammed into a pole. It was Toyota's argument that SUV toppled over. So we do not know the full facts here. Hence cannot simply absolve the manufacturer. Why did Toyota offer a compensation if it was convinced that there was no frontal impact.
I am sure an Indian supreme court judge can understand the basics of air bag deployment. Till we come to know the full facts we cannot take sides.

I wonder if all the people siding here with Toyota would have done so if it had been a Tata or a Mahindra !

[Yeldo]

Originally Posted by Parm

Was the Fortuner fitted with a bull bar in front of the front bumper, which did not let the airbag deployment sensors work upon impact?

That is a valid question, but Toyota itself sells a bull bar as an official accessory.

Mahindra sells one for Scorpio too, but the accessory brochure says that bull bars are NOT meant for vehicles equipped with airbags.

[ACM]

Feel it is a well deserved judgement if at all I feel they should have been awarded a 1 CR. penalty. 25L is just the cost of the vehicle. The driver may have been at fault which is why the penalty imposed is less on Toyota. The issue is not about how the driver was driving but about the Airbags not opening due to whatever design or manufacturing defect.

Toyota will I believe find it cheaper to a accept the judgement than to take any further -ve backlash on PR front or even risk a bigger penalty.

Manufacturers must not be allowed to sell bull bars and side steps that affect safety features at authorized dealerships. But that is another story.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by columbus

Please read the story carefuly. I am reproducing here what is written in that article.

The SUV had allegedly rammed into a pole before toppling over.

The manufacturer had argued that since the SUV toppled over and did not have a frontal impact, its airbags did not open.

Tankha agreed to Toyota's offer of Rs 15 lakh to the driver's family and Rs 10 lakh to the owner with interest from the date of accident.

It says that the car rammed into a pole. It was Toyota's argument that SUV toppled over. So we do not know the full facts here. Hence cannot simply absolve the manufacturer. Why did Toyota offer a compensation if it was convinced that there was no frontal impact.
I am sure an Indian supreme court judge can understand the basics of air bag deployment. Till we come to know the full facts we cannot take sides.

I wonder if all the people siding here with Toyota would have done so if it had been a Tata or a Mahindra !

I read it carefully and which is why I said my response is based on the story alone, in the absence of any other information. I don't think ramming is synonymous with frontal collision, as your post seems to imply. You can hit an object from the side and even the back if you reverse into it. All those situations qualify as ramming.

I don't quite understand how or why "manufacturer" underlined is somehow supposed to indicate ulterior motive or malfeasance. Toyota paying the compensation may just be an attempt to end the episode and protect its directors, as others have said. Hence my last comment.

But that is conjecture and so is everything else. Based on the story alone, the SUV didn't have a frontal collision. That's all we know. I seriously doubt Toyota will lie about that in court. And I'm no Toyota fanboy, I've never owned a Toyota product in my life.

[Speed Pujari]

This remind me of this tragic thread.
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/street...rders-fir.html
Hope manufacturer stop taking customer's life for granted.

The manufacturers are not worried because of lame law here unlike in other countries. A billion rupees fine not lesser than 10 CR will compel these manufacturer to perform proper testing of vehicles right from design table.

[Blue Bird]

Now that the car manufacturer has been found guilty for the Airbags not deploying when it should have. I wonder why the penalty has only been Rs 25lacs, Will Toyota go bankrupt ?? (It wouldnt even pinch them a bit and sad part is that instead of car manufacturer's getting wary of such incidents happening in the future, they would rather welcome another airbag failure and pay 25 lacs more rather than upgrading there safety standards)

Or maybe for a country with a billion plus population , Loss of life shouldn't be much of a concern and according to the Judge 25 lacs maybe too huge an amount for an average Indian!!

[V12Doc]

I think the sensors Toyota is using are of inferior quality. I have had them fix airbag warning light in my fortuner three times now and it still comes up. it is due to loose sensor wiring. Going tobpuspush them for replacement on the next service. No Company is bulletproof when it comes to cars maybe except tesla. When you have 100 models of car to build and 30 new models every year worldwide then you can probably forget them doing proper engineering. Better make 10-20 global models which can be engineered to perfection

[zenren]

Disgusting, to say the least. It is high time Indian Judiciary starts understanding the concept of punitive damages and how it can lead to the welfare of the people.

If I were a financial analyst in Toyota, this news would be interpreted as an opportunity to shut down the Quality Control department in the company to be more profitable. After all, if there are some quality issues that are proven, Toyota would end up paying up to the vehicle price in the worst case where it leads to death. This can easily be compensated by the savings from not having a full fledged Quality Assurance team.

[isiv]

Somebody has got their math totally wrong and yet somebody has got it perfectly spot on. 25 lac is probably the depreciated value of the car that crashed. So the manufacturer should pay that much and no more.

OTOH, what kind of compensation is 25 lac for a loss of life? Just because the life was a drivers'? Who arrived at that number and on what basis? Made worse by the fact that the amount is going to be distributed between owner & driver. They might have as well announced 25K and saved some money in the process.

This whole thing stinks and to me, sounds worse than a manufacturer claiming driver error/incorrect maintenance/unintended use or any of the truckload of typical (ridiculous) canned corporate responses.

[joybhowmik]

Interesting the owner is being paid Rs 10 lakh. It's a kind of excess compensation to him. The likely Insurance payout + 10 lakh >> Rs 27 lakh. Rather, the manufacturer ought to have directed the 10 lakh to the drivers family. Even if it's the only compensation they receive, every drop counts!

[Traveller Nayak]

Originally Posted by isiv

This whole thing stinks and to me, sounds worse than a manufacturer claiming driver error/incorrect maintenance/unintended use or any of the truckload of typical (ridiculous) canned corporate responses.

I agree. If the issue is that of defective product resulting in loss of human life - then there is no reason for Toyota to be rewarded for a defective product.

In my personal view - a compensation should be respectable and should come as a deterrent for future negligence.

This amount doesn't do any.

For the person who bought a Fortuner - surely he could afford and therefore the compensation should factor probable loss of earning for that person and the family. Complicate this by dividing with the driver. For the driver's family its a blind spot.

For the manufacturer - the lawyers have done a good job. This is not even a slap on the wrist.

I hope the judicial approach to cases involving loss of life gets them to appreciate 'one life lost - a family member gone - and that a human life is not a product that can be replaced.'

[tazmaan]

Toyota claim that lack of frontal impact and roll over doesn't deploy airbags. In my case they did even though there was no frontal impact. (See the pics).

Who is making what kind of stories God knows. I am glad airbags deployed.

Edit:

I owned the 1st generation Innova and a 2012 Innova. The build quality of both the products when compared has gone down. Features have increased but the over all quality seems lacking.

[rattanw]

This news comes as a welcome ray of hope given the sad pile up of incidents involving deficiency in product and / or services by auto manufacturers and the huge benefit they have been deriving from an inept investigative and judicial system in India. In any developed nation, investigative and judicial arms of the state would have caused severe financial and other penalties in such abysmal cases of faulty products and / or services, sadly not so in India.

The natural reaction of auto manufacturers to any and every incident where their product or service has been found wanting is first, denial; second, blame it on something else; and third, if nothing else works, brush it under the carpet by agreeing to such ridiculously low token penalties. How else can you describe this? In my opinion, any fine or any other form of reprimand should be serious enough to act as a deterrent. This fine, though the effort by the court is commendable, is a trickle. And lets not forget this verdict comes by the Supreme court, the highest court of the land. Had the honorable Supreme court so desired, given the fact that there is no other appeal mechanism other than a review petition, the penalty imposed should have been 10 times the current level plus a job in Toyota to the next of the kin of the dead driver to give the family some ray of hope (with a guarantee that this one job should be held intact even in the event of an unlikely slashing of staff by Toyota corporate). Then in some sense of the word, true 'justice' may be served. Just in case you think this is impractical, I am being really practical by stating what I stated above. More than the monetary compensation, which may be written off as an one time loss in the books, it is the underlying message the judgement carries which is the most important. For the simple fact that such message shall live on and used in future (God forbid). In this case, hence, the highest court should have taken a more pragmatic and humane approach.