'Non-Availability Of Spares No Excuse': Kerala Consumer Forum Slams Godrej For Failing To Honour AC Compressor Warranty, Awards Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently passed an award against Godrej for failing to replace a failed compressor of an air conditioner that it manufactured within the warranty period. It directed specific performance against the manufacturer to repair or replace the compressor in accordance with the warranty obligations.The Bench comprising D.B. Binu (President), V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. was considering a consumer complaint preferred against the manufacturer of an air conditioner and the dealer from which it was purchased.According to the complainant, in April 2018, he purchased a split air conditioner which carried a seven-year compressor warranty. In March 2024, he noticed reduced cooling and registered a service complaint. The technician assigned inspected the product and reported complete compressor failure. However, instead of repairing or replacing, it was told that the compressor for the complainant's AC model was not available and the company would follow up in this regard.Since there was no follow-up, the complaint was escalated and the service manager told the complainant that the compressor cannot be replaced but a new AC can be provided upon payment of Rs. 15,000/. The complainant could not pay the amount and he requested for warranty service. However, the same was not done inspite of repeated reminders and finally, the AC became completely non-functional. Aggrieved, a consumer complaint was made.The opposite parties remained ex parte before the commission and the complainant adduced documentary evidence including invoice, receipt, warranty details, etc.The bench found that the complaint was maintainable since it was regarding post-sale warranty and availability of spare parts.On the question of deficiency in service, the commission came to a conclusion that this was so since there was failure to replace compressor and to ensure availability of spare parts. Moreover, since the compressor did not last during the warranty period, the same was considered as a defect. However, the commission held that only the manufacturer is liable in this case and not the dealer."Conditional offer amounting to coercive upselling. The stance communicated—that a new A/C would be given only upon payment of ₹15,000/- and that compressor replacement is unavailable—is unjustified where warranty subsists. Conditioning warranty compliance upon an additional purchase/payment is an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47)," the Bench observed.Applying the principles of Competition Law, the commission concluded that the manufacturers action amounted to a 'tie-in'. It then went to discuss about the lacunae in the law incorporating a consumer's 'right to repair'. It further remarked:"While India presently lacks a codified “Right to Repair” statute, competition-law jurisprudence has recognised consumer harm where manufacturers restrict access to essential spares. See Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars Ltd. & Ors., CCI Case No. 03/2011 (2014) (anti-competitive foreclosure of spares held impermissible). Though not determinative here, it underscores that withholding essential parts can be anti-consumer. In fact, OP's assertion of non-availability of compressor during the warranty period—without any bona fide alternate remedy—amounts to a deficiency and an unfair trade practice."The commission felt that this was a fit case to award the remedy of specific performance. If this was not possible, the complainant shall have the option either to get refunded the purchase price with 9% interest or get a replacement AC of the same quality or higher. It held:"Non-availability of spares during warranty cannot defeat the consumer's contractual entitlement; the proper relief is specific performance of warranty obligations (repair/replacement) or, if impracticable, refund with appropriate interest to neutralise the consumer's loss of use."The bench also awarded a total of Rs. 25,000 as compensation and costs. Thus, it disposed of the complaint.Case No: CC No. 769 of 2024Case Title: Sudharsanan C.R. v. Godrej/Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Anr.Counsel for the opposite party: R. Padmaraj, Sajeevan V.T., Deepak Mohan, Aswin Ashok V., and Anjali G. KuttyClick to Read/Download Order

'Non-Availability Of Spares No Excuse': Kerala Consumer Forum Slams Godrej For Failing To Honour AC Compressor Warranty, Awards Compensation

K. Salma Jennath

Tags