Ernakulam District Commission Holds Bismi Appliances, Carrier, Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts of the Case

The complaint, filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, addresses issues with an air conditioner (A/C) purchased from Bismi Appliances(Opposite Party – OP 3). The A/C experienced a water leakage, prompting the complainant to notify the manufacturer Carrier A/C(Opposite Party- OP 1). Two servicemen were sent but could not resolve the issue, attributing it to a manufacturing defect. Additional servicemen and replacement of parts were attempted, but the problem recurred. The complainant then hired three independent servicemen, but the issue persisted. The company suggested further payment for gas refill, and despite the complainant's efforts, the problem remained unresolved. Frustrated by wasted time, expenses, embarrassment, and various inconveniences, the complainant stopped using the A/C and filed a consumer complaint, seeking a resolution for the persisting defect. The complainants emphasize that the third opposite party, Bismi Appliances, is also partially responsible for the difficulties caused as they recommended the A/C. purchase.

Contention of the Opposite Party(OP)

The first and second opposite parties failed to file their written version despite receiving the Commission's notice. The Counsel for OP 3 (Bismi Appliances) asserted that the complainant knowingly purchased the A/C and that, being merely a dealer, the responsibility for servicing lies with the manufacturer and not with the dealer. It was argued that the complainants had contacted the manufacturer about the alleged defect, and dealer had no knowledge of these communications. Dealer further contended that even if a manufacturing defect exists, the duty to rectify it falls on the manufacturer, citing a Supreme Court precedent. It was asserted that no deficiency lies in their service and as a dealer, not liable for manufacturing defects.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission stated that the persistent water leakage and motor malfunction strongly suggest a manufacturing defect in the A/C, and the OPs failed to address the issues adequately despite the complainants' timely reporting, leading to ineffective A/C repairs.

It was held that the manufacturer and service provider, as the responsible entities in the supply chain, are accountable for manufacturing defects and service deficiencies in the air conditioner (A/C). The Commission relied on Hindustan Motors v. Shivakumar and Ors case, the Supreme Court Judgement which holds that dealers cannot avoid responsibility for manufacturing defects. As part of the supply chain, dealers are obliged to ensure defect-free products and provide after-sales service. If defects arise, dealers and manufacturers are jointly liable to remedy and compensate the consumer. The argument of the third opposing party, claiming no liability as a dealer, was deemed untenable. The first and second opposing parties' failure to respond favored the complainants, leading the Commission to find them liable for the grievances based on evidence and relevant case laws, granting the requested reliefs.

The Commission held the OPs jointly and severally liable and directed them to replace the defective A/C and pay Rs. 15,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service, along with a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards the cost of proceedings.

Counsel for the Opposite party: Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan

Case Title: V. P. Asokan Vs. Bismi Appliances & Ors.

Case Number: C.C. No.- 178/2019

Click Here To Read/Download The Order