Deficient Maintenance Of Water Purifier, Chandigarh Commission Orders Eureka Forbes Ltd. To Refund Maintenance Amount And Pay Rs. 10k Compensation

Brief Facts of the Case:

Arvind Kumar (“Complainant”), a 68-year-old resident of Sector 51-B, Chandigarh, purchased an Annual Maintenance Contract (“AMC”) for his Classic Eureka Forbes Water Purifier for a three-year period from September 3, 2021, to September 2, 2024. The AMC was priced at ₹5,175. Soon after the purchase, the water purifier began experiencing operational issues. Initially, there was trouble with the start button, which required multiple repairs to rectify. Subsequently, a new issue arose where water continuously flowed from the purifier's outflow pipe, even when the appliance was not turned on.

The situation escalated in May 2022 when the water purifier's pipe connecting to the water tap burst, causing significant water damage to the kitchen's roof, walls, and electrical devices. Despite replacing the damaged pipe, the purifier continued to exhibit problems, prompting the complainant to file a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh (“District Commission”) against Eureka Forbes Ltd.

Notably, Eureka Forbes Ltd. did not present any contentions or counter-arguments during the course of the proceedings, leading the District Commission to proceed against them ex parte.

Observations by the Commission:

Eureka Forbes’ absence in the proceedings was interpreted as an acknowledgment that they were unable to challenge or refute the allegations made by the complainant. This absence further underscored the complainant's assertions of deficient service and unfair trade practices on the part of Eureka Forbes. In the absence of any counter-narrative from Eureka Forbes, the District Commission considered their lack of defence as a compelling factor in favour of the complainant's case, strengthening the complainant’s claims of suffering due to inadequate service and the resultant damages.

Considering the evidence on record, the District Commission unequivocally concluded that the complainant's grievances were justified. It established that Eureka Forbes’ failure to deliver the assured services of complete repair to the water purifier, as specified in the AMC, constituted a deficiency in service. Furthermore, the absence of any response or representation from the company in the proceedings further bolstered the presumption of unfair trade practices and inadequate service.

Given these circumstances, the District Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, directing Eureka Forbes Ltd. to refund the full AMC invoice amount of ₹5,175. Additionally, recognizing the inconvenience, losses, and harassment suffered by the complainant due to its actions, the District Commission ordered Eureka Forbes Ltd. to pay a lump sum amount of ₹10,000 as compensation for deficient services and litigation costs.

Case: Arvind Kumar vs M/S Eureka Forbes

Case No.: CC/633/2022

Advocate for the Appellant: Complainant in person.

Advocate for the Respondent: Ex parte

Click Here To Read/Download Order