Manufacturing Defect In Electronic Goods Must Be Proved By Expert Evidence; Mere Malfunction Not Sufficient: Delhi State Consumer Commission
Pranav B Prem
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has allowed an appeal filed by M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., setting aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI which had directed refund and compensation to a consumer alleging manufacturing defect in a Godrej split air conditioner. The State Commission held that a manufacturing defect in electronic goods must be established through expert evidence and that mere malfunction during usage cannot, by itself, be treated as an inherent defect. The appeal was decided by a Bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member).
The complainant, Sahil Gupta, had purchased a Godrej split air conditioner on 28.05.2019 from M/s Ezone Services for a consideration of ₹32,000. Subsequently, on 06.02.2020, he opted for an Annual Maintenance Contract at a cost of ₹5,900, which provided coverage till May 2024. According to the complainant, the air conditioner stopped functioning in March 2022, following which a service request was raised on 13.03.2022.
It was alleged that although authorised technicians attended the premises on multiple occasions, the unit continued to display error codes and did not function properly. The complainant further claimed that the air conditioner remained non-functional for over a month and, ultimately, he engaged a third party to repair the unit at a cost of ₹12,350.
Aggrieved by the alleged failure to rectify the defect, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI seeking refund of the cost of the air conditioner, reimbursement of AMC charges and repair expenses, along with compensation. The District Commission allowed the complaint and held the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It directed refund of the cost of the air conditioner along with interest, refund of AMC charges and repair expenses, and awarded compensation of ₹50,000 and litigation costs of ₹10,000.
Challenging this order, M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. preferred an appeal before the State Commission. It was contended that there was no deficiency in service, as authorised technicians had attended the complainant’s premises on several occasions and carried out necessary repairs, including replacement of the cooling coil, PCB and sensors. It was further submitted that the air conditioner had functioned for nearly two and a half years prior to the first complaint, thereby ruling out any inherent manufacturing defect. The appellant also questioned the genuineness of the third-party repair bill and argued that no expert evidence had been produced to prove manufacturing defect.
On the other hand, the complainant maintained that the air conditioner suffered from an inherent defect and that repeated visits by technicians failed to resolve the issue.
After examining the service records and job cards placed on record, the State Commission noted that technicians had attended the premises multiple times, carried out wet service, replaced major components and charged gas wherever required. The Commission also observed that, in certain instances, technicians could not attend to the complaint as the premises were found locked, and that the unit was repaired as and when required.
The Commission emphasised that the air conditioner was purchased in 2019 and the first complaint was raised only in March 2022, after prolonged usage. It reiterated the settled legal position that manufacturing defect must be proved by concrete expert evidence and observed: “Every defect, on the face of it, cannot be termed to be a manufacturing defect, until proven to the contrary by concrete evidence.”
The Commission further held that deficiency of service can be attributed to a manufacturer or service provider only where there is refusal or deliberate failure to repair the product. In the present case, the record showed that authorised technicians had attended the complaints and carried out repairs whenever required.
Holding that no manufacturing defect or deficiency of service was established, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI. As a result, the directions for refund, compensation and costs issued against Godrej were quashed.
Cause Title: M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd v. Sahil Gupta & Anr.
Case No: FA No. 353/2023
Coram: Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member)
