Back
Delhi Court Delivers Icy Verdict: Fujitsu Must Refund ₹1.14 Lakh for Faulty AC
In a swift win for consumer rights, the —presided over by President Sukhvir Singh Malhotra and Member Ravi Kumar —has ruled against . The commission found the company liable for selling a defective 3-ton split air conditioner, ordering a full refund of ₹1,14,000 plus interest, alongside compensation and costs. This case underscores how persistent service failures can prove product defects even without expert reports.
A Purchase Meant for Comfort Turns into a Cooling Nightmare
Vaibhav Singh Bhadana, a resident of Mayur Vihar, Delhi, shelled out ₹1,14,000 on , for a high-capacity split AC from an authorized Fujitsu dealer. Installation hit a snag right away: the company deemed a conventional wall setup unfeasible, forcing Bhadana to build a custom stand at an extra ₹15,329 after consulting the dealer.
Cold February weather delayed testing until . That's when disaster struck—the AC failed to cool properly. What followed was a barrage of complaints: five calls on , eleven on alone, and more on subsequent days up to . A technician finally arrived on but botched the job, leaving scratches, grease marks, and declaring "gas is less" without a fix. Promised follow-up visits ghosted, culminating in a legal notice that went unanswered. Bhadana filed the complaint on , seeking refund, stand costs, hefty compensation, and litigation expenses.
One Side Fights, the Other Stays Silent
Bhadana backed his claims with a purchase bill, call logs, and affidavits from himself, his wife, a neighbor, and a self-proclaimed mechanical engineer. He argued persistent malfunctions and shoddy service screamed under consumer protection laws, demanding justice for the "hardships faced."
Fujitsu? Served with notice, the Chennai-based giant neither appeared nor filed a written statement. As the commission noted, this left Bhadana's allegations , tilting the scales heavily.
No Expert Needed: Calls Speak Louder Than Reports
The bench dissected the evidence meticulously. Testimonies from the neighbor and engineer were dismissed as hearsay lacking credentials. But Bhadana and his wife's accounts as held sway, corroborated by bills and exhaustive call records.
Crucially, the commission ruled that formal expert opinion wasn't essential.
"The number of calls made by Complainant from
to
exhaustively prove that the AC of the Complainant was not working and it was a product having certain inherent defect,"
it observed. The unprofessional technician visit and failed repairs sealed Fujitsu's liability for a
and poor after-sales service. The stand cost claim? Rejected, as it didn't tie to the core merits against Fujitsu.
This aligns with broader consumer court trends where documented service failures substitute for technical reports, as echoed in reports on the case.
Key Observations
"Complainant has been able to prove that there wason the part of OP by selling awhich was not initially installed on the conventional wall and when it was installed on a separately manufactured stand however AC was not giving proper cooling."(Para 8)
"One fact however is also clear that there is no expert opinion available on the record but the number of calls made by Complainant fromtoexhaustively prove that the AC of the Complainant was not working..."(Para 9)
"OP has not filed their reply and therefore the case of the Complainant goes un-rebutted."(Para 10)
Justice Served with Interest: Refund, Return, and Relief
The , order is clear-cut: - Refund ₹1,14,000 with 7% p.a. interest from the complaint filing date ( ), upon return of the AC. - ₹25,000 compensation for hardship. - ₹10,000 litigation costs .
Comply within 30 days, or face 9% p.a. interest until payment. Free judgment copies go to parties.
This ruling empowers consumers battling faulty gadgets: log those calls, document everything, and unresponsive companies risk full refunds. For firms like Fujitsu, it’s a reminder that silence in court amplifies liability. Future cases may lean harder on service logs as defect proof, chilling sloppy after-sales practices across India.
