In a significant consumer rights ruling, a Delhi consumer commission has directed Fujitsu General India to refund the full purchase price of ₹1.14 lakh to a customer, along with interest. The commission has also awarded ₹25,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs in a case involving a defective air conditioner and alleged poor after-sales service.
According to the complaint, Vaibhav Singh Bhadana, a resident of Mayur Vihar, purchased a 3-ton split air conditioner from an authorized dealer of Fujitsu on 17 February 2025 for ₹1.14 lakh. At the time of purchase, the weather conditions did not allow proper testing of the unit. During installation, the company reportedly informed the customer that the AC could not be mounted on a conventional wall, forcing him to spend an additional ₹15,329 on a specially manufactured stand.
Registration Begins for FutureCrime Summit 2026, India’s Largest Cybercrime Conference
Dozens of Unanswered Distress Calls
The issue surfaced when the AC was first used in May 2025, as temperatures rose. The complainant alleged that from 11 May onwards, the air conditioner failed to provide adequate cooling. Between 18 and 21 May, he repeatedly contacted the company, making multiple complaints and service requests. On 18 May, he reportedly made five calls, while on 19 May alone, he made 11 calls right from 11:57 AM to 3:09 PM seeking urgent resolution.
Despite repeated complaints, the technician sent by the company allegedly failed to fix the problem. Instead of resolving the defect, the inspection was handled unprofessionally, leaving grease handmarks and scratches on the indoor unit. The technician later stated that the gas level was low, but no proper repair was carried out. After this, further attempts to contact the service team reportedly received no response, and a promised follow-up visit was deemed “not feasible” by the staff.
The Ex-Parte Liability Determination
With no satisfactory resolution or replacement offered, the customer issued a legal notice and approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Delhi. The Chennai-based electronic giant did not file a reply or appear before the commission, resulting in an ex-parte hearing where the customer’s allegations went entirely unrebutted.
The commission, presided over by S.S. Malhotra (President) and Ravi Kumar (Member), observed that the repeated complaints and service calls clearly indicated a persistent defect in the product. It held that the company failed to provide proper after-sales service and had committed a clear “deficiency in service” under consumer protection norms.
Call Logs Evaluated as Exhaustive Proof
Crucially, the bench dissected the evidence and ruled that a formal technical expert report was not mandatory to establish a hardware malfunction when overwhelming circumstantial proof existed:
“The number of calls made by the complainant from 11.05.2025 to 21.05.2025 exhaustively prove that the AC of the Complainant was not working and it was a product having certain inherent defect which could not be resolved by the technician of OP when he visited the Complainant.”
While the commission accepted the core claim, it declined the relief seeking reimbursement for the custom installation stand’s cost (₹15,329), stating it did not relate directly to the core liability merits against Fujitsu General India.
Enforcement Timelines and Interest Penalties
The commission accepted the claim and directed a full refund of the purchase amount of ₹1,14,000 along with a 7% per annum simple interest calculated from the initial date of the complaint filing (29 May 2025), subject to the simultaneous return of the air conditioner.
The order further stated that the directive must be complied with within 30 days of receiving the judgment copies. Failure to meet this layout will automatically hike the financial liability on the company, applying a punitive 9% per annum interest rate on all ordered cumulative balances until the final date of realization.
