Non-Availability of Spares Cannot Defeat Warranty Obligations: Kerala Consumer Commission Orders Godrej to Replace AC Compressor
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., has held Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to honour a seven-year compressor warranty in respect of a split air conditioner, citing non-availability of spare parts. The Commission directed specific performance of the warranty obligations by ordering repair or replacement of the compressor and awarded compensation and costs to the complainant.
The complaint was filed by Sudharsanan C.R., who purchased a Godrej split air conditioner on 14 April 2018 from Pittapillil Agencies, Ernakulam. The air conditioner carried, inter alia, a seven-year warranty on the compressor, as represented at the time of purchase. In March 2024, during the subsistence of the warranty period, the complainant noticed reduced cooling performance and registered a service complaint with the manufacturer. A technician inspected the unit, collected service charges, and reported complete compressor failure, further stating that the compressor for the particular model was not available and that the company would follow up. However, no follow-up action was taken.
When the complainant escalated the issue, he was informed by the service manager that the compressor could not be replaced and that a new air conditioner would be provided only upon payment of ₹15,000. The complainant expressed his inability to pay the amount and requested warranty service as promised at the time of purchase. Despite repeated reminders and communications, no repair or replacement was carried out, and the air conditioner eventually became completely non-functional during peak summer. Aggrieved by the inaction, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the manufacturer and the dealer.
Notices were issued to both opposite parties. Despite service, neither the manufacturer nor the dealer filed their written versions within the statutory period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and they were proceeded against ex parte. The complainant adduced documentary evidence, including the invoice, receipt, product details, and warranty card, which remained unrebutted. The Commission drew an adverse inference against the opposite parties for their failure to contest the claim despite due notice.
On the issue of maintainability, the Commission held that the complaint was clearly maintainable, as it related to post-sale warranty service and availability of spare parts, falling squarely within its jurisdiction. On merits, the Commission found that the compressor had failed during the subsisting warranty period and that the manufacturer had neither replaced the defective part nor ensured the availability of essential spares. The Commission observed that such conduct constituted deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and also amounted to a product defect, as the compressor failed within the warranty period.
The Commission further held that the conditional offer to supply a new air conditioner only upon payment of an additional amount amounted to coercive upselling and an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Act. It observed that conditioning warranty compliance upon additional payment was unjustified where the warranty was still valid. The Commission also applied principles of competition law and held that insisting on such payment amounted to a tie-in arrangement and a restrictive trade practice under the Act.
While noting that India does not yet have a codified statutory “right to repair,” the Commission observed that competition-law jurisprudence recognises consumer harm where manufacturers restrict access to essential spare parts. Referring to Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars Ltd. & Ors., the Commission held that withholding essential spares during the warranty period, without providing any bona fide alternative remedy, was anti-consumer and amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The Commission clarified that the obligation to honour the compressor warranty lay primarily on the manufacturer, and not on the dealer. Finding no material to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the dealer, the Commission exonerated Pittapillil Agencies from liability and dismissed the complaint against it.
Holding that non-availability of spares during the warranty period cannot defeat a consumer’s contractual entitlement, the Commission found the present case fit for granting the remedy of specific performance. It directed the manufacturer to replace the failed compressor and restore the air conditioner to full working condition free of cost within 30 days, with the replaced compressor carrying a fresh warranty of 12 months. In the event of failure to comply, the manufacturer was directed, at the complainant’s option, either to supply a new air conditioner of equivalent or superior specifications or to refund the full purchase price with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. In addition, the Commission directed Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. to pay ₹20,000 as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, and financial loss, along with ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. The complaint was thus disposed of, with directions to comply within the stipulated time.
Cause Title: Sudharsanan C.R. v. Godrej/Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No: CC No. 769 of 2024
Coram: President D.B. Binu, Members V. Ramachandran, Sreevidhia T.N
