Ernakulam Consumer Commission Directs Eureka Forbes to Replace Defective Water Purifier; Holds Manufacturer and Service Provider Liable for Deficiency in Service
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, presided over by Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member), and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member), held Eureka Forbes Ltd. and its authorised service provider jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, following the faulty installation of an Aquaguard water purifier and subsequent failure to resolve the grievance despite repeated complaints from the consumer.
Facts of the Case
The complainant, Mr. Augstine K.A., an aged and physically disabled painting worker residing in Nettoor, purchased an Aquaguard Crest UV water purifier for ₹10,200/- from Nandilath G Mart on 28.06.2023. The unit was manufactured by Eureka Forbes Ltd. (1st Opposite Party) and was to be installed and serviced by their authorised service provider (2nd Opposite Party). Nandilath G Mart was impleaded as the 3rd Opposite Party as the retailer who sold the unit.
Following the purchase, a technician from the service provider visited the complainant’s residence for installation. However, instead of replacing old fittings, he negligently cut the hose and connected it to an old knob, leading to non-functioning of the water purifier right from the start. A second technician later diagnosed the issue as an "anticopper complaint" and advised the complainant to contact the company directly. Despite submission of a formal complaint along with the purchase invoice, neither the pipe nor the knob was replaced, and the unit remained non-functional. The complainant contended that the repeated failure to address his grievances caused him considerable hardship, especially considering his advanced age and physical condition.
Having received no effective response, the complainant filed a complaint before the Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking replacement of the defective unit or a refund of the amount paid, along with compensation of ₹15,000 and litigation expenses.
Response of the Opposite Parties
The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties (Eureka Forbes Ltd. and its service provider) failed to appear before the Commission or file any written version despite being served with notices on 20.01.2024 and 09.01.2024, respectively. Consequently, they were set ex parte on 04.03.2024.
The 3rd Opposite Party, Nandilath G Mart, contested the complaint and asserted that it was merely the retailer. It submitted that the responsibility for installation, warranty, and post-sale service squarely lay with the manufacturer and its authorised centres. It also alleged that the complaint was false, frivolous, and filed with the intention to harass, pointing out that the complainant never approached them after the sale. The dealer claimed that the malfunction related solely to service personnel of the manufacturer and that the complainant had failed to establish any cause of action against it.
Observations and Findings of the Commission
The Commission first examined the maintainability of the complaint and held that the complainant, having purchased the water purifier for personal domestic use, clearly qualified as a “consumer” under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complaint was therefore maintainable.
The Commission then considered the evidence on record, which included the GST invoice marked as Exhibit A1. Since the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties failed to appear or challenge the complainant’s case, the allegations against them remained uncontroverted. The Commission relied on the National Commission’s decision reported in 2017 (4) CPR 590 (NC), where non-response by an opposite party was held to amount to deemed admission of the complainant’s version.
It was observed that the first technician from the service provider had used an inappropriate method of installation by connecting the new hose to an old knob without replacement, rendering the purifier inoperative. Despite a formal complaint, the grievance was not resolved. The Commission concluded that this amounted not only to a deficiency in service but also to unfair trade practice, especially considering the complainant’s vulnerable condition.
Vicarious Liability and Negligence
The Commission held that Eureka Forbes Ltd., being the manufacturer and the warrantor, was vicariously liable for the actions of its authorised service provider. It emphasised that failure to ensure proper installation and non-resolution of the issue even after formal notice constituted serious lapses in after-sales service. The 2nd Opposite Party, being the entity that executed the defective installation and failed to rectify it, was held primarily responsible for direct negligence.
On the other hand, the Commission found that the 3rd Opposite Party, Nandilath G Mart, had fulfilled its obligations as a retailer. The product had been sold with necessary documentation including warranty and user manual, and no evidence was presented to suggest that the defect existed at the point of sale. Accordingly, the Commission exonerated the retailer from liability.
Award of Relief
In awarding relief, the Commission relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh [(2004) 5 SCC 65], wherein it was held that compensation in consumer matters must extend beyond mere monetary loss and also address mental agony, harassment, and emotional distress. The Commission noted that the complainant, being elderly and physically challenged, had suffered mental agony, inconvenience, and financial loss due to the inaction of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties.
Accordingly, the Commission passed the following directions:
The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties shall replace the defective water purifier with a new one of the same model and specification within 30 days. If replacement is not feasible, they shall refund ₹10,200/- to the complainant.
They shall jointly and severally pay ₹5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, and financial loss suffered.
They shall also pay ₹5,000/- towards the cost of proceedings.
They are at liberty to take back the defective purifier within 30 days of compliance with the above directions.
These directions are to be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of the order. Failing which, the monetary reliefs shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (04.12.2023) until full realisation.
Cause Title: Augstine K.A V. Water Purifier Eureka Forbes, Aquaguard Crest UV & Ors.
Case No: CC.No. 927 of 2023
Coram: Shri D.B. Binu [President], Shri V. Ramachandran [Member], Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. [Member]
