Manufacturing Defect Must Be Proved By Expert Evidence: Delhi State Consumer Commission
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has allowed the appeal filed by M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., setting aside the District Commission's order which had directed refund and compensation to a consumer alleging defect in an air conditioner. The Commission held...
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has allowed the appeal filed by M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., setting aside the District Commission's order which had directed refund and compensation to a consumer alleging defect in an air conditioner.
The Commission held that manufacturing defect in electronic goods must be established through expert evidence, and mere malfunction during usage cannot automatically be treated as an inherent defect.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Sahil Gupta, purchased a Godrej split air conditioner on 28.05.2019 from M/s Ezone Services for a consideration of ₹32,000. He subsequently opted for an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) on 06.02.2020 at a cost of ₹5,900, which provided coverage up to May 2024.
In March 2022, the air conditioner stopped functioning, following which the complainant raised a service request on 13.03.2022. Authorised technicians attended the premises on multiple occa-sions. However, the complainant alleged that the unit continued to show error codes despite ser-vice.
The complainant thereafter raised further service requests and alleged that the air conditioner re-mained non-functional for over a month. Eventually, he engaged a third party and got the unit re-paired at a cost of ₹12,350.
Aggrieved, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI seeking refund and compensation. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed re-fund of AMC charges and repair expenses, besides awarding compensation of ₹50,000 and litiga-tion costs of ₹10,000.
Challenging the order, M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. preferred an appeal before the State Commission.
Arguments by Godrej (OP No. 1)
Godrej contended that there was no deficiency in service, as authorised technicians attended the complainant's premises on multiple occasions and carried out necessary repairs, including re-placement of cooling coil, PCB and sensors. It was submitted that the air conditioner had func-tioned for around two and a half years prior to the first complaint, ruling out any inherent manufac-turing defect.
The O.P. No.1 further argued that the alleged third-party repair bill was fabricated and that manu-facturing defect was not proved through expert evidence.
Observation & Decision
The State Commission observed that the complainant had failed to place any expert evidence on record to establish manufacturing defect. It noted that the air conditioner had been purchased in 2019 and the first complaint was raised only in March 2022, after prolonged usage.
The Commission reiterated that:
“Every defect in an electronic product cannot be treated as a manufacturing defect unless proved by concrete expert evidence.”
It further observed that deficiency of service can be attributed to a manufacturer only where there is refusal or deliberate failure to repair, which was not made out in the present case. The service records showed that technicians had attended multiple times and replaced major components.
Holding that no manufacturing defect or deficiency of service was established, the Commission al-lowed the appeal and set aside the District Commission's order dated 08.06.2023.
M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd v. Sahil Gupta & Anr.
Appeal No.: FA No. 353/2023