The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior, comprising Rajendra Prasad Sharma (President) and Revati Raman Mishra (Member), held Eureka Forbes liable for deficiency in service for failing to repair and return a defective vacuum cleaner during the warranty period. Allowing the complaint in part, the Commission directed the company to return the repaired vacuum cleaner or, if it could not be repaired, provide a new unit of the same model or refund the purchase price, along with compensation and litigation costs.

Brief Facts

Ms. Prakriti Mishra, the complainant, purchased a vacuum cleaner from Eureka Forbes (Opposite Party) through Amazon on 15-05-2024 for Rs. 3,699/-. Within two days of the purchase, on 17-05-2024, the vacuum cleaner began emitting smoke due to overheating, and its paper sweep melted, prompting the complainant to switch off the appliance immediately.

The complainant informed the Opposite Party of the defect and, since the product was under warranty, sought its repair or replacement. In response, the company sent several technicians to repair the vacuum cleaner by replacing its motor, but they failed to rectify the defect.

In October 2024, a technician took the vacuum cleaner from the complainant's residence, assuring her that it would be repaired and returned shortly. However, the product was never returned and remained in the Opposite Party's custody. Aggrieved by the company's failure to repair or return the vacuum cleaner, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior, seeking a refund of Rs. 3,699/- along with compensation for the financial loss, mental agony.

Arguments of the Opposite Party

Eureka Forbes, the Opposite Party, contended that the complaint was false and had been filed solely for compensation. It argued that whenever the complainant reported defects in the vacuum cleaner, it promptly deputed technicians to inspect and rectify the issue.

The Opposite Party submitted that whenever complaints regarding the product were received, technicians were immediately deputed to rectify the defect. It contended that there was no deficiency in service and sought dismissal of the complaint.

Observations of the Commission

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the conduct of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in service. The Commission observed that the company did not dispute that the vacuum cleaner had developed defects during the warranty period.

Furthermore, the Commission noted that although the Opposite Party claimed that it had promptly dispatched technicians to attend to the complaint, it failed to rebut the complainant's assertion that the technicians were unable to repair the product. OP also did not deny that its technician had taken the vacuum cleaner for repairs and that the product was never returned to the complainant.

Accordingly, the Commission held the Opposite Party liable for deficiency in service and directed it to

• Return the repaired vacuum cleaner at its own expense.

• If the product cannot be repaired, provide a new vacuum cleaner of the same model or refund the purchase price of Rs. 3,699/-.

• Pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.

• Pay Rs. 1,500/- towards litigation costs.

Case Title : Prakriti Mishra vs Eureka Forbes Limited

Case No : D.C.C./407/C.C./396/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order