Chandigarh resident awarded refund for faulty water purifier’s service contract
While directing Eureka Forbes Ltd to refund ₹5,175 charged as annual maintenance contract cost for the faulty water cooler, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission also asked the firm to pay ₹10,000 as compensation for deficiency in services and litigation costs to the complainant
A 68-year-old man, whose water purifier broke down multiple times, has been awarded a complete refund of the machine’s annual maintenance contract (AMC).
The complainant, Arvind Kumar, a resident of Chandigarh, had submitted that he had bought an annual maintenance contract for his Classic Eureka Forbes Water Purifier for three years and the machine started giving him problems during this period (Shutterstock)
While directing Eureka Forbes Ltd to refund ₹5,175 charged as AMC cost, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission also directed the firm to pay ₹10,000 as compensation for deficiency in services and litigation costs.
The complainant, Arvind Kumar, a resident of Sector 51-B, had submitted that he had bought an AMC for his Classic Eureka Forbes Water Purifier for three years — from September 3, 2021, to September 2, 2024.
During this period, the machine started giving problem in starting, which was set right by the service technician after repeated repairs. Later, in May 2022, the pipe connecting the water tap to the water purifier burst from the middle, causing water damage to the kitchen roof, walls and electrical gadgets.
It was repaired, but another problem soon cropped up. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the company, Kumar approached the consumer court.
The firm was proceeded against ex parte as no one appeared on their behalf.
The commission observed that the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the firm was clearly made out, which certainly caused harassment and loss to the complainant.
“They are directed to refund the AMC invoice amount of ₹5,175 to the complainant and a lump sum amount of ₹10,000 as compensation and litigation cost,” the commission ordered.