Penalty for failing to repair defective water purifier

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: A Consumer Commission in Bengaluru has imposed a fine of Rs.10,000 on Eureka Forbes Limited for causing mental agony and financial loss on a consumer by not repairing a defective water purifier that was still under warranty.

“For denying rectification though it is under warranty and made the complainant to get good drinking water from outside by investing in that which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and his family. OP has to compensate with the compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation,” the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said in its judgement on October 4.

The complaint was filed by one Kumar MG, a resident of Mahadevapura, Bengaluru. He had purchased the water purifier for Rs.14,490 in November 2019. He was told by the sales team that the product had a long life and reliability and it had a warranty of one year.

His complaint stated that “said product was promoted by brand ambassador Madhuri Dixit with false and misleading advertisement about the product which is deceptive practice of business.”

Within two days of the purchase the Aquaguard product stopped functioning. The Company referred it for rectification. In September 2020, the product again needed repair and Kumar paid Rs.2,450.

In January 2021 the product stopped working again and a technician was sent after 11 days to repair it. He was advised to take an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC).

Kumar faced problems with the product again in July 2021. He was told by the Company to buy a new product. After hearing both the parties, the Commission in its order said, It is pertinent to note that after perusing the complaint, the complainant has raised his complaint more than 3-4 times with OP (Opposite Party, Company), more so OP has not rectified the defective product and did not make the product in good condition.

Later one of the executives from OP company of Kolkata promised to replace the defective product with the new one but the sales team of OP in Bengaluru did not agree to replace the new product.”

The Commission ordered the Company to repay Rs.13,490 with interest to Kumar along with Rs.2,450 he had paid for repairs apart from the compensation of Rs.10,000 and Rs.5,000 towards cost of litigation.

“Though the product was under warranty period OP neither replaced the product when it was under warranty nor took proper resolution to the defect which is causing problem/inconvenience to the complainant, it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP,” the Commission said. (CC 66/2023)