Lack of Expert Evidence Leads to Reversal of Deficiency of Service Order Against Godrej & Boyce
In a significant development, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has overturned the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had earlier found M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices concerning a defective air conditioner purchased by Sahil Gupta.
The case revolved around allegations by the complainant, Sahil Gupta, who claimed that the air conditioner he purchased from Godrej & Boyce had inherent manufacturing defects and that the service provided was deficient. The District Forum, in its order dated June 8, 2023, had directed Godrej to refund the cost of the air conditioner along with interest, reimburse the repair costs, and compensate for mental agony and litigation expenses.
Godrej & Boyce, however, contested this decision at the State Commission, arguing that the alleged manufacturing defect was not substantiated with expert evidence, as required under consumer protection laws. The company highlighted that the air conditioner was purchased in 2020 and the first complaint was raised only in March 2022, which was well beyond the initial years of operation.
The State Commission, presided over by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, noted that the absence of expert evidence to prove a manufacturing defect was a critical oversight in the District Forum's judgment. The Commission also reviewed the service records, which indicated that Godrej technicians responded promptly to repair requests and took necessary actions to resolve issues with the air conditioner. In several instances, service technicians replaced faulty parts and ensured the unit was functioning properly, but the complainant refused to accept the repairs.
The judgment emphasized that while electronic products might experience defects, not every defect can be presumed to be a manufacturing fault. The Commission concluded that Godrej had fulfilled its service obligations by addressing repair requests, and thus, no deficiency in service could be attributed.
As a result, the State Commission set aside the District Forum's order, allowing the appeal by Godrej & Boyce. The Commission's decision underscores the importance of providing expert evidence in consumer disputes involving allegations of manufacturing defects.
The case serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements in consumer protection cases and reinforces the obligation of complainants to substantiate claims with credible evidence.
Bottom Line:
Consumer Protection - Allegations of deficiency in service and manufacturing defect in air conditioner - Absence of expert evidence to prove manufacturing defect - No deficiency in service can be attributed if the service provider promptly addresses repair requests.
Statutory provision(s): Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12
M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd v. Sahil Gupta, (DSCDRC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2844923
