Hyderabad District Commission Holds Eureka Forbes Liable For Sale Of Purifier Without Intimation Of Associated Risks

Brief Facts:

Mr. Sivareddypeta Durgananda Swam (“Complainant”) had been using the Gold Nova model water purifier from Eureka Forbes for over 14 years. In December 2022, the Complainant inquired about renewing the annual maintenance, and the Eureka Forbes' salesmen recommended upgrading to a new model, the Aquaguard Select Classic, stating advantages like chip-based technology and a three-stage filtering system. Trusting this information, the Complainant opted for the new model, which was installed on 21st December 2022. However, the salesmen failed to inform him about any limitations or extra precautions compared to the previous Gold Nova model.

After 8 months of use, the Complainant discovered that the Aquaguard Select Classic had stopped working. Upon registering a complaint, a technician informed the Complainant that the filters had jammed, having reached a capacity of 6000 litres. This was surprising given that the Complainant and his spouse, both seniors, had only used the purifier for eight months on municipal water. Despite being within the one-year warranty period, the technician insisted on replacing the candles at the complainant's expense.

Due to family visits and heavy rains, the Complainant could not immediately pursue the issue. Forced to borrow water from neighbours, the Complainant reluctantly paid Rs. 1275/- for the necessary repairs. Dissatisfied with the response from the company, the Complainant sent a registered letter to Eureka Forbes, highlighting the lack of information about the model's limitations and demanding a refund for the new machine. The Complainant didn't receive any response from Eureka Forbes. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Eureka Forbes.

Eureka Forbes didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission held that Eureka Forbes sold the new water purifier to the Complainant without adequately disclosing critical limitations. It held that this lack of information resulted in significant inconvenience and financial loss for the Complainant. Further, it noted that despite being duly served notice, Eureka Forbes failed to appear before the District Commission, thereby, substantiating the claim made by the Complainant. Therefore, the District Commission held Eureka Forbes liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Eureka Forbes to refund the entire amount paid for the Aqua Guard Select Classic Plus, which was purchased on December 14, 2022. The refund was calculated after deducting 10% from the cost of the product, resulting in a sum of Rs. 10,799/-. The Complainant was further directed to promptly hand over the Aqua Guard Select Classic Plus to Eureka Forbes.

Additionally, recognizing the inconvenience and financial loss suffered by the Complainant, the District Commission directed Eureka Forbes to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the Complainant. Moreover, Eureka Forbes was ordered to bear the costs of the litigation, amounting to Rs. 2,000/-.

Case Title: Sivareddypeta Durgananda Swamy vs Officer In-charge, M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd.

Case Number: C.C.No. 579/2023

Advocate for the Complainant: Party-In-Person

Advocate for the Respondent: None (Ex-parte)

Click Here To Read/Download order