Ernakulam District Commission Holds Polycab India Liable For Deficiency In Service For Refusing To Replace Defective Inverter During Warranty Period
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Ramachandran V. (Presiding Member) and Sreevidhia T.N. (Member), held Polycab India Private Limited and another opposite party liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for refusing to replace a defective inverter during the subsistence of the warranty period. The Commission observed that the defect had arisen within the five-year manufacturer's warranty and that the failure of the opposite parties to honour the warranty obligations warranted relief to the complainant.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Saju P. Joseph, purchased Polycab Solar String Inverter and related accessories from Libra Industries (Opposite Party No. 2), manufactured by Polycab India Private Limited (Opposite Party No. 1), on 18-03-2022 for installation at his residence-cum-workplace. The complainant paid Rs. 1,18,708/-, out of which the price of the inverter was Rs. 84,450/-. The product was covered by a five-year manufacturer's warranty.
On 28-10-2022, the inverter became defective and stopped functioning. A technician inspected the unit and replaced it the following day. However, the complainant noticed that during the replacement, the technician had replaced his 2021 model inverter with an older model manufactured in 2019. Subsequently, on 12-04-2024, the replacement inverter also malfunctioned. Although a technician inspected the device and confirmed that it was defective, the opposite parties allegedly refused to replace it and instead attributed the fault to issues with the KSEB.
Due to the malfunctioning inverter, the complainant was unable to utilise the electricity generated by his solar panels and was forced to rely on power supplied by KSEB, resulting in additional ex-penses, including an electricity bill of Rs. 7,515/- for May 2024. Despite repeated email requests seeking replacement or refund, the opposite parties allegedly did not respond adequately.
Aggrieved by the refusal of the opposite parties to honour the five-year warranty, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, seeking refund of the amount paid along with compensation.
Despite being duly served with notice, the opposite parties failed to appear before the Commission or file their written version within the prescribed time, and were therefore proceeded ex parte.
Observations & Decision
The Commission held that the OPs committed a gross deficiency in service by failing to replace the defective inverter in accordance with the warranty terms. It observed that the complainant had purchased the inverter based on the assurances of the opposite parties regarding its efficiency, durability, and its five-year manufacturer's warranty. The Commission noted that the original inverter became defective soon after it was purchased, and the replacement inverter also developed faults while under the warranty period.
The Commission held that the opposite parties failed to honour their obligations under the warranty by refusing to replace the second defective inverter, even though it was still within the five-year warranty period. Furthermore, the Commission, taking note of the financial hardship suffered by the complainant, observed that due to the malfunctioning inverter, he was unable to utilise the electricity generated from his solar panels and was compelled to rely on power supplied by KSEB, thereby incurring additional electricity expenses.
Concluding, the Commission held that the OPs were liable for deficiency in service for failing to extend the benefits of the warranty to the complainant, even though the defect had occurred during the subsistence of the warranty period. Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to
• Refund Rs. 84,450 to the complainant
• Pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered
• Pay Rs. 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings
Case Title: SAJU P JOSEPH vs Polycab India Private Limited CC NO. DC/555/CC/743/2024