U. Farooq vs Hier Pvt Ltd
Warranty Protection Against Defective Products – After-Sale Service Accountability
The Dispute
The complainant purchased an air conditioner that malfunctioned shortly after installation, shutting down during peak hot weather. The respondent company attempted to shift responsibility between installers and service personnel, avoiding effective rectification.
Legal Position Under Consumer Law
The court held that warranty protection must be meaningful and practical, not merely a "paper guarantee."
- 01
Statutory Obligation: After-sale service is both a statutory and contractual obligation.
- 02
Burden of Proof: The service provider must prove the proper functioning of goods during the warranty period.
- 03
Third-Party Blame: Companies cannot avoid liability by blaming installation issues unless they can prove consumer misuse or external damage.
Court Powers and Conclusion
The ruling confirmed that warranty obligations are legally binding. Failure to resolve defects through repeated repairs can result in court-ordered replacement or compensation. The judgment strengthens the rights of consumers to receive the essential benefits of their purchases without "repair hassles."
Legal Significance
This case establishes that warranty is not a mere formality but a legally enforceable commitment. Sellers and manufacturers who deflect responsibility through blame-shifting between departments or third-party installers remain fully liable under consumer protection law. The judgment empowers consumers to demand functional after-sale service as a right, not a favour.