The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has slapped a company engaged in manufacturing and marketing household electrical appliances with a fine of ₹30,000 for the alleged failure to repair a water purifier despite an annual maintenance contract (AMC) being in place.
The Commission comprising D.B. Binu, president, and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. issued the ex parte order on a petition filed by one Ajish. K. John of Kothamangalam against the manager of Eureka Forbes Ltd.
The complainant said he had an AMC with the opposite party since 2018, which he regularly renewed for uninterrupted service. Despite this, the complainant faced repeated service issues. In April 2024, the purifier began leaking, and although a service request was raised, it was later cancelled unilaterally by the opposite party, he said.
Following this, the complainant approached the Commission. However, the opposite party failed to submit any argument notes or participate in the proceedings. The Commission observed that the service lapses constituted a deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Further, unilateral cancellation of a service request without informing the complainant amounts to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47), as it misleads or fails to fulfil a promised contractual obligation, the Commission observed.
The complainant, being deprived of clean drinking water due to the non-functioning of the purifier, endured mental agony, hardship, and inconvenience, especially given that the purifier was essential due to contaminated well water.
“The Complainant, despite diligently maintaining an Annual Maintenance Contract and repeatedly reaching out for help, was met with silence, delays, and even the unjust cancellation of service. This experience not only disrupted his daily life but also caused significant mental distress. When a consumer is compelled to approach a legal forum for the enforcement of basic service obligations, it reflects a glaring failure in corporate responsibility and empathy, values that should be at the heart of every consumer-facing organisation,” the Commission remarked.
Consequently, the opposite party was directed to pay ₹25,000 as fine and another ₹5,000 towards the cost of legal proceedings.
Published – June 05, 2025 10:19 pm IST