 "air conditioner, ACs")
Nilesh Nenshi Gala purchased two Bluestar split air conditioners from Reliance Retail on September 27, 2018, for which he paid ₹70,000 at the rate of ₹35,000 each. The air-conditioners came with a one-year warranty.
In March 2019, while the warranty was still in force, one of the air conditioners developed cooling issues. Nenshi approached the seller to resolve the problem. A technician from Bluestar inspected the unit and confirmed the fault. Although the manufacturer agreed to replace the defective air conditioner, no action followed. Reliance also continued to delay the matter. Faced with inaction, Nenshi filed a complaint before the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Commission), alleging deficiency in service.
Reliance contested the complaint and argued that it was not maintainable as it did not constitute a consumer dispute. It admitted that Nenshi had complained about the faulty unit and that complaint had been forwarded to the manufacturer, who, after inspection, had agreed to replace it. Reliance contended that the warranty was given by the manufacturer, yet Bluestar had deliberately not been made a party to the proceedings. It maintained that its role was limited to informing the manufacturer about complaints, and since it had done so, no negligence could be attributed to it.
Reliance further argued that it could not be held liable for any defect in the product as the manufacturer alone provided the warranty. The company alleged that Nenshi wanted the new unit without returning the defective one, and had made other unacceptable demands, which led to the replacement not being provided. Reliance insisted that the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious, and liable to be dismissed.
Nenshi denied that he wanted to retain the defective unit, terming the allegation false and baseless. He reiterated that the promised replacement was not provided despite repeated follow-ups and that no reason was ever assigned for the delay or failure to send the replacement.
The District Commission overruled Reliance’s objections. It held the complaint to be maintainable since both air conditioners were purchased for domestic use. It observed that the defect in cooling had occurred within the one-year warranty period and that the manufacturer had agreed to replace the defective unit. The Commission also noted that Reliance had failed to produce any evidence to support its accusation that Nenshi wanted to keep the faulty air conditioner. It concluded that the failure to replace the defective unit amounted to deficiency in service.
The Commission pointed out that under consumer law, the seller is equally accountable for ensuring that the buyer receives a defect-free product, and would be liable for failing to redress the purchaser’s grievance.
The Commission emphasised that Reliance, as a prominent retail chain, was expected to uphold the standard of professional conduct when dealing with customers, rather than making baseless allegations to shirk its own accountability.
The Commission concluded that Reliance was guilty of deficiency in service and had engaged in unfair trade practice. By its order dated August 7, 2025, delivered by Presiding Officer Sadikali Sayyad for the Bench along with GM Kapse, the Commission directed Reliance to replace the defective air conditioner. It also noted that Nenshi had undergone considerable mental agony and harassment, for which he was entitled to ₹10,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. A period of 30 days was allowed for compliance, failing which the amount would carry 9 per cent interest.
The writer is a consumer activist
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
