JioMart, Sansui told to pay woman Rs 85,000 after brand new AC found ‘dead on arrival’

A consumer commission in Visakhapatnam has directed e-commerce platform JioMart and electronics manufactuer Sansui to pay Rs 55,000 as compensation, besides refunding Rs 29,999, to a woman who purchased a Sansui air conditioner from JioMart, which was found to be defective from the day of installation.

A bench of president Dr Gudla Tanuja and member Varri Krishna Murthy was hearing the plea of one Ganugula Bhavana, who sought directions against JioMart and Sansui to either refund Rs 29,999 or replace the defective air conditioner with a new unit, besides awarding compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.

“The commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled to a refund or replacement of the air conditioner purchased under Ex A1. The complainant is also entitled to compensation as she was made to suffer without reaping the fruits of the money parted under Ex A1 right from the date of installation till the dispute lasted, which definitely causes harassment, humiliation and distress besides costs of litigation,” the June 5 order read.

‘Dead on arrival’

The consumer body noted that the product sold to the complainant suffered from defects and had been declared ‘dead on arrival’ by the companies’ own team.

It held that the failure of both companies to address the complainant’s request for a refund or replacement amounted to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

The commission noted that the air conditioner was installed at the complainant’s residence by technicians deployed by the companies themselves.

It also noted that the product carried a 10-year warranty on the compressor.

The commission directed the companies to refund Rs 29,999 to the complainant

The companies were also directed to pay interest on Rs 29,999 at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of purchase till the date of realisation.

The consumer commission directed JioMart and Sansui to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation along with Rs 5,000 towards costs.

Purchase of Sansui AC from JioMart

The complainant claimed that he purchased a Sansui air conditioner on April 25, 2024, from JioMart, paying a sum of Rs 29,990.

It was alleged that the air conditioner was not non-functional since the date of installation. Subsequently, the technicians advised that the same be sent to the head office by mail for replacement.

It was further added that on their advice, the complainant got a complaint raised through her brother-in-law with JioMart customer care seeking a replacement. The JioMart team allegedly confirmed receiving the complaint and said they will replace the product within 72 hours by a mail dated May 18, 2024.

Since then, the complainant claimed that she waited for replacement of the product, but in vain. Later, she added, JioMart changed their stance and offered to carry out repairs instead of providing a replacement.

Story continues below this ad

Aggrieved, she approached the commission alleging deficiency in service and was represented by advocate N Vasant Kumar.

JioMart ‘merely online retailer’

JioMart, through its counsel, advocate G Gayathri Dhana Lakshmi, denied the allegations and asserted that the product was delivered to the complainant on April 25, 2024, in an intact and untampered package with all accessories in sealed boxes.

It was contended that JioMart is not the manufacturer but merely an online retailer. The product sold by them is covered under a manufacturer-issued warranty, which is subject to terms and conditions set by the brand owners. It was argued that the liability for defects is in product or its after-sales service issues rests solely with the manufacturers.

JioMart mentioned that upon receiving a complaint, their investigation team inspected the AC and determined that it was indeed “dead on arrival”. It was further claimed that they immediately informed Sansui and requested for replacement.

Story continues below this ad

Though Sansui initially denied the request for replacement, after further discussions, they eventually approved it and arranged for product pickup, it was alleged.

Despite several follow-ups, the complainant remained adamant and refused to allow pickup of the product, on the premise that she would first consult with her lawyer, it was claimed.

There was no deficiency on the part of JioMart, it was alleged, and due to non-cooperation, the grievance of the complainant could not be redressed.

Complainant prevented evaluation: Sansui

Representing Sansui, advocate Gavss Kumar argued that the product in question was delivered to JioMart after conducting several tests.

Story continues below this ad

It was added that the alleged technical issues observed in the air conditioner could be rectified through servicing. However, the complainant, without allowing the technician to attend to the repairs, insisted on a replacement.

It was added that the complainant’s insistence for replacement without technical assessment was not supported under the warranty policy. Sansui pointed out that the complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion obtained from an authorised laboratory to substantiate that the product suffers from manufacturing defects.

It was added that the complainant deliberately avoided technical evaluation in order to pressurise the company for replacement without verification.

Significance of ruling

This ruling underscores that companies cannot escape liability by shifting the blame onto one another or onto the consumer. They are bound to provide the quality of product and standard of service promised at the time of sale and are accountable for any deficiency in the same.

Story continues below this ad

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Andhra Pradesh contact: 0866-2551431) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.