Mumbai District Commission Holds Reliance Retail Liable For Failure To Replace Defective Air Conditioner

Brief facts:

The complainant had purchased two blue-star split Air Conditioners for Rs. 70,000 from Reliance Digital Store ('seller') situated in Mumbai on 27/09/2018. As per the complainant, around March 2019, one of two ACs started having cooling issues and exhibited signs of performance failure. The complainant, being within the 1-year comprehensive warranty period approached the seller to resolve the issue.

As per the complainant, the seller failed to provide timely service and repeatedly made the complainant to wait. Despite follow-ups, the AC was neither replaced nor repaired by the seller. It was alleged that the manufacturer was prepared to replace the unit but the seller failed to facilitate the replacement. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the seller, the complainant filed a complaint with the Mumbai District Commission praying for appropriate compensation.

Submissions of the seller:

As per the seller, the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant is not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the commission lacks the power to try the complaint. It was submitted that on receipt of the complaint, it was immediately forwarded to the manufacturer- Bluestar. It was further submitted that the complainant was being unreasonable in retaining the defective unit in addition to receiving a new one, due to which the replacement could not be completed.

The seller further submitted that as a retailer, it is not responsible for post-sale warranty service and thus there is no deficiency in service on its part.

Observations of the commission:

Issue 1: Whether the complainant is a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

It was observed that the complainant purchased two Bluestar Air Conditioners for personal domestic use from the seller's store for a consideration. It was held that the transaction satisfies all the elements of 'consumer' under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the seller also falls within the definition of 'service provider'.

Thus, the failure to facilitate post-sale warranty support by the seller was held to be a 'consumer dispute' as defined under Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act, 1986. Hence, the complaint was held to be maintainable.

Issue 2: Whether there is deficiency of service on the seller's part?

It was observed that the seller's argument that the complainant was making unreasonable demands by insisting on keeping the old unit in addition to the new one was not supported by any documentary evidence. It was further observed that under the Consumer law, when a defective product is sold with any warranty, the manufacturer and the seller share a duty to ensure that the consumer receives a redressal of his grievances.

Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Spring Meadows vs Harjot Ahluwalia [ (1998) 4 SCC 39] wherein it was observed that when a consumer suffers from defective goods, the responsibility lies with all the persons involved in the supply chain. It was observed that the seller failed to follow up adequately with the manufacturer thereby ensuring execution of the replacement. Thus, the long delay and inaction the seller's part was held to be gross negligence and a case deficiency in service under Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act, 1986.

Thus, the seller- Reliance Retail Ltd. was held liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by failing to replace the product within a reasonable time despite accepting defect and warranty claim.

Hence, the complaint was allowed with the following reliefs:

1. Replacement of defective AC
2. Compensation of Rs. 10,000 for mental agony and harassment
3. Litigation costs of Rs. 5,000

Case Title: Nilesh Nenshi Gala vs Reliance Retail Ltd.

Case Number: Consumer complaint No. 117/2019

Counsel for Complainant: Saiyed Sahil and Manish Gala

Counsel for Opponent: S.P Chavan

Date of Decision: 07.08.2025