Delhi Consumer Court Directs Fujitsu General To Refund ₹1.14 Lakh For Defective AC; Awards ₹25k Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Delhi, comprising Sukhvir Singh Malhotra (President) and Ravi Kumar (Member), has held Fujitsu General (India) Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for selling a defective air conditioner that failed to provide adequate cooling shortly after installation. The Commission observed that the exhaustive number of service calls made by the consumer proved the existence of an inherent defect that the company's technicians failed to resolve.

Facts of the Case

The complainant, Vaibhav Singh Bhadana, purchased a 3-ton split AC from an authorized dealer of Fujitsu General on February 17, 2025, for ₹1,14,000. Upon installation, the Opposite Party (OP) claimed that a conventional wall installation was not feasible, forcing the complainant to construct a separate stand at an additional cost of ₹15,329.

Due to the cold weather in February, the AC was first used on May 11, 2025, at which point the complainant discovered it was not cooling properly. Between May 11 and May 21, 2025, the complainant made numerous calls to the company. On May 19 alone, 11 calls were made. A technician who eventually visited handled the unit unprofessionally, causing scratches and grease marks on the indoor unit, and ultimately failed to fix the issue, stating that the “gas is less.”

Subsequently, a legal notice was issued, but no action was taken, leading to the filing of the consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking refund, compensation, and costs.

Although notice was issued and served upon Fujitsu General India Pvt. Ltd., the company neither appeared nor filed a written statement before the Commission. Consequently, the allegations made by the complainant remained unrebutted.

Observations & Decision

The Commission noted that the complainant successfully established the purchase of the AC and the repeated complaints made regarding its malfunctioning. It observed that the AC failed to provide proper cooling despite installation and service attempts, and that numerous service requests and calls demonstrated persistent defects in the product. The technician deputed by the opposite party also failed to resolve the issue. The absence of any rebuttal by the opposite party further strengthened the complainant's case.

The Commission also observed that the testimonies of a neighbour and a mechanical engineer produced by the complainant were not relied upon, being hearsay and unsupported by documentary proof of expertise. However, the testimonies of the complainant and his wife were accepted as they were primary witnesses to the hardship suffered.

The Bench held that even in the absence of formal expert opinion, the sheer volume of service calls made between May 11 and May 21, 2025, sufficiently established that the AC was not functioning and suffered from an inherent defect which could not be rectified by the company's technician. Accordingly, the Commission found clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for selling a defective product and failing to provide adequate after-sales service.

The Commission allowed the complaint, held the opposite party liable, and directed refund of ₹1,14,000/- to the complainant with interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, subject to return of the AC. It further directed payment of ₹25,000/- as compensation and ₹10,000/- towards litigation costs.

The claim for reimbursement of the cost incurred for installation of a separate stand was rejected. The Commission also directed that the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which the amounts would carry interest @9% per annum until realization.

Case Title: Vaibhav Singh Bhadana vs. Fujitsu General India Pvt Ltd.

Case No.: DC/78/CC/238/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order