{"id":34019,"date":"2026-10-08T07:15:57","date_gmt":"2026-10-08T07:15:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=34019"},"modified":"2026-10-08T07:15:57","modified_gmt":"2026-10-08T07:15:57","slug":"ac-kept-tripping-after-purchase-despite-repeated-repairs-delhi-consumer-court-orders-replacement-rs-15000-compensation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=34019","title":{"rendered":"AC kept tripping after purchase despite repeated repairs; Delhi consumer court orders replacement, Rs 15,000 compensation"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"AC<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
AI generated image used for representative purpose<\/span><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

NEW DELHI: A Delhi consumer commission has directed an air conditioner manufacturer to replace a defective AC after it repeatedly malfunctioned despite several complaints and technician visits. The commission also ordered the manufacturer and seller to pay Rs 15,000 in compensation and other relief after finding deficiency in service and a manufacturing defect.The consumer had bought the AC for Rs 32,274 in July 2024, but alleged that it started malfunctioning and tripping repeatedly soon after installation. He made five to six complaints and sought repair and later replacement, but the problem continued.<\/p>\n

Case background<\/b><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

As per the commission order, the consumer purchased a Voltas AC from Hari Om Retail Pvt Ltd on July 16, 2024, for Rs 32,274. He also paid Rs 4,274 specifically towards warranty.Soon after installation, the AC allegedly began malfunctioning and tripping repeatedly. The consumer informed the seller and manufacturer and requested that the AC be repaired and later replaced.He made around five to six complaints through the manufacturer’s online complaint portal. Technicians also visited multiple times, but the defect allegedly continued.On May 6, 2025, the consumer emailed the manufacturer again, stating that the AC had not been replaced despite multiple complaints and service visits.Two days later, on May 8, he met representatives of the seller and again requested replacement, but did not receive a satisfactory response.The consumer then approached the district consumer commission seeking replacement of the AC, Rs 50,000 compensation for mental agony and harassment, and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs.The seller did not file its written version or appear before the commission and was proceeded against ex parte. The manufacturer’s reply was also not taken on record as it was filed beyond the maximum 45-day period.<\/p>\n

What did the commission observe?<\/b><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

The bench comprising President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar <\/span>and members Ashwani Kumar Mehta <\/span>and Harpreet Kaur Charya <\/span>found that the consumer’s evidence established that the AC had repeatedly malfunctioned shortly after installation.The commission noted that the consumer had made five to six complaints and that technicians had visited multiple times, but the defect persisted.\u201cWhere a product continues to exhibit the same malfunction despite repeated repair attempts within the warranty period, the persistence of the defect is itself sufficient to establish deficiency, without requiring the consumer to additionally produce an independent technical or expert report,\u201d the commission said.It also noted that the opposite parties had not produced job sheets or service records showing that the defect had been cured or that the problem was caused by misuse by the consumer.The commission said a consumer cannot be expected to keep accepting a product that continues to fail despite giving the trader and manufacturer repeated opportunities to repair it.The bench also relied on a Supreme Court judgment which held that the purpose of consumer law is to provide speedy and simple redressal and that the need for expert evidence should not be elevated in every case.\u201cThe same reasoning applies here: the Complainant’s repeated, unresolved complaints within days of installation, corroborated by unrebutted affidavit evidence and unmet by any service record from either Opposite Party, are sufficient to establish the defect without recourse to a laboratory report,\u201d the commission said.The commission also referred to a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruling and said repeated complaints and service visits supported the finding that the AC had a manufacturing defect.It ultimately held that both the seller and manufacturer were deficient in service and that the AC suffered from a manufacturing defect.<\/p>\n

Final order<\/b><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), in its September 21, 2026 order, directed the opposite parties to:<\/p>\n

\n