AC shows ‘low cooling’ 9 days after purchase, senior citizen customer wins Rs 48,450

The dispute arose after Kumar purchased a Whirlpool 1.5-ton split air conditioner on May 16, 2024, for Rs 33,450. According to the complaint, the air conditioner began showing cooling and auto-cut problems almost immediately after installation, prompting him to lodge his first complaint on May 25, 2024, just nine days after buying it. Despite multiple repair visits over the following months, the defects in the air conditioner allegedly kept returning, eventually forcing him to move the consumer commission.

Repeated repairs

According to the complaint, Whirlpool’s authorised technicians initially attended the complaint after it was reported in May 2024. However, the consumer alleged that the same defects resurfaced four to five times during July and August 2024.

Each time, technicians attempted repairs, but the cooling problem and malfunctioning auto-cut feature allegedly reappeared in the air conditioner after intervals of around 15 to 20 days.

The complainant said he did not use the air conditioner during winter. When he restarted it in the last week of March 2025, the same defects allegedly returned.

He registered another complaint with Whirlpool’s toll-free helpline on April 1, 2025, but claimed no technician visited his residence. He later sent an email to the company on April 26, 2025, alleging that there was no meaningful follow-up despite the product remaining under warranty.

The consumer further alleged that when he personally approached the authorised service centre, he was informed that the air conditioner suffered from an inherent manufacturing defect that could not be permanently rectified. He argued that despite spending his hard-earned money on a reputed brand, he was left with a product that repeatedly failed and caused mental agony and inconvenience.

Manufacturer failed to contest complaint

While the authorised service centre filed its written version denying liability, Whirlpool’s manufacturing entities failed to file their written statement within the statutory period despite entering appearance before the commission.

As a result, the commission forfeited its right to file a defence. The authorised dealer also failed to contest the proceedings and was proceeded against ex parte.

The commission observed that the complainant had placed on record the purchase invoice, complaint records and other documents establishing that the defects were repeatedly reported during the warranty period. Since the manufacturer failed to rebut these allegations, the commission relied on a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission precedent holding that failure to file a written reply amounts to admission of the allegations in a consumer complaint.

‘Can’t expect to repeatedly seek repairs’

• After examining the evidence, the commission concluded that the air conditioner started malfunctioning almost immediately after installation and that the same defect repeatedly recurred despite several repair attempts.
• “The repeated recurrence of the same defect despite several repair attempts clearly establishes that the product suffered either from an inherent manufacturing defect or from a defect which could not be effectively rectified by the authorised service centre.
• A consumer cannot be expected to repeatedly approach the service centre for the same defect during the warranty period, the commission said.
• It held that Whirlpool failed to permanently rectify the recurring problem or replace the defective unit even after repeated complaints.
• The commission observed that the repeated recurrence of the same defect despite multiple repair visits clearly indicated either an inherent manufacturing defect or one that could not be effectively rectified by the authorised service centre.
• The commission, however, dismissed the complaint against the authorised dealer and the authorised service centre.
• It held that there was no evidence showing negligence by the dealer in the sale transaction.
• It also found that while the service centre had attempted repairs, the primary responsibility to honour the warranty and replace a defective product rested with the manufacturer.

Allowing the complaint, the commission directed Whirlpool’s manufacturing entities to refund Rs 33,450 with 7 per cent annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint until payment, subject to the complainant returning the air conditioner. It also ordered the company to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs, with compliance to be made within 45 days, failing which the complainant may initiate execution proceedings.

Consumer takeaway

If a product keeps developing the same fault during its warranty period despite repeated repairs, you can seek a refund, replacement or compensation before a consumer commission instead of accepting endless repair attempts. Keep invoices, complaint numbers, emails and service records safely. These documents can play a crucial role in proving deficiency in service and securing relief.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Punjab helpline: 0800-22577) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.