Improper Installation And Failure To Address Grievances; Ernakulam District Commission Holds Eureka Forbes & Service Provider Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam presided by Shri.D.B.Binu (President) , Shri. V.Ramachandran (member) and Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N ( member ) held Eureka Forbes & service provider liable for faulty installation of the Aquaguard water purifier and non-functioning of the same.
Facts of the Case:
The complainant, an aged and disabled painting worker, purchased a Eureka Forbes Aquaguard Crest UV water purifier for Rs. 10,200/- from Nandilath G Mart, a home appliance retailer (Opposite Party No.3) . While installing, the service technician negligently cut the hose and connected it to the old knob. The water purifier never functioned post-installation due to negligent service. Despite the complainant’s repeated complaints, no effective service was rendered.
Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached the consumer commission.
Contention of the Opposite Parties;
The 1st Opposite party , Eureka Forbes Ltd, manufacturer & 2nd opposite party its service provider failed to appear and file their written version , hence proceeded ex-parte.
The 3rd opposite party ,Nandilath G Mart , retail seller contended that they are wrongly implicated in the complaint and they are only a seller of the water purifier purchased by the complainant . They added the malfunction reported relates to service personnel from the manufacturer, whose actions are beyond their control or knowledge.
They stated that installation and after-sales service are sole responsibility of the manufacturer and its authorised service centres and not the dealer.
Observation by the Commission
The Commission observed that the complainant, having purchased the water purifier for personal domestic use, suffered subsequent non-performance of the product, clearly falls under the definition of “consumer” as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act.
It added that service provider’s failure to properly install the unit and rectify the issue constitutes deficiency in service as per Section 2(11) of the Act.
The Commission stated that Eureka Forbes is vicariously liable for the act of its authorized agents. Failure to ensure proper installation and functioning of the product or address the grievances amounts to deficiency in service. The Commission held that the Nandilath G Mart, (Third Opposite Party) is not liable for the manufacturers or installer’s service lapses.
The Commission relied on the order passed by the Supreme Court in In Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 scc 65, wherein the Court held that compensation awarded to consumers should not be limited to actual financial loss but must also encompass mental agony, harassment, and emotional distress caused by the deficiency in service.
The Commission by allowing the complaint, directed the Eureka Forbes Aquaguard & its service provider to replace the defective water purifier with a new one of the same model and specifications. If replacement is not feasible, they shall refund Rs. 10,200/- to the complainant.
The commission further directed the opposite parties 1& 2 to pay Rs.5000 as cost and Rs. 5000 as compensation to the complainant.
