The Commission, after going through the orders of the district as well as the State commission, agreed that the collision was a frontal collision. It explained that there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of a witness examined by the complainant, who happened to be an expert in the field.
Moreover, it noted that the evidence of a witness examined by Toyota suggested also supported this version.
“This coupled with evidence of RW-1 with respect to recall of vehicles by Toyota company for faulty airbags and wipers in the many parts of the world, which have been reported in the newspaper also, lends credence to the case of complainant/respondent that vehicle in question had a manufacturing defect due to which the airbags did not deploy despite the collision being frontal one and of impact velocity in which it ought to have deployed, coupled with problem relating to burning of clutch plates or emanating smoke about 10 days before the date of accident,” it added.
Source: Barandbench
