Gwalior District Consumer Commission Holds Eureka Forbes Liable for Service Deficiency Under CPA, 2019

Introduction

In Ms. Prakriti Mishra v. Eureka Forbes Limited (CC No. 396 of 2025), the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh), in its order dated 23rd June 2026, held Eureka Forbes Ltd. liable for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The case arose after a newly purchased vacuum cleaner malfunctioned within two days of purchase and was subsequently retained by the manufacturer's technician without being repaired or returned. This decision reinforces the strict accountability of electronic appliance manufacturers to honor product warranties and ensure effective after-sales service.

Factual Background

The complainant, Ms. Prakriti Mishra, purchased a Eureka Forbes Vacuum Cleaner through Amazon on 15th May 2024 for a consideration of ₹3,699. Just two days later, on 17th May 2024, the appliance began emitting smoke due to severe overheating, causing its paper sweep to melt.

Since the product was well within its warranty period, the complainant immediately lodged a complaint requesting repair or replacement. Although multiple technicians inspected the appliance and attempted to replace the motor, the defect could not be rectified. In October 2024, an authorized technician, Manal Singh Baghel, took custody of the vacuum cleaner, promising a prompt repair and return. However, the product was neither repaired nor returned, remaining indefinitely in the custody of the opposite party. Seeking redressal, the complainant filed a formal consumer complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Contentions of the Parties

• The complainant advocate Shailendra Singh alleged gross deficiency in service, emphasizing that the product failed almost immediately after purchase and that the manufacturer failed to fulfill its warranty obligations, causing financial loss and mental distress.

• Eureka Forbes Ltd. contended that the complaint was filed maliciously to extract compensation. They argued that there was no deficiency on their part as they had acted diligently by immediately deputing technicians whenever a complaint was received.

  
  

Commission's Observations

The Gwalior District Commission, coram Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma (President) and Shri Revati Raman Mishra (Member), closely evaluated the evidence and ruled in favor of the consumer:

• The Commission observed that while the manufacturer claimed to have sent technicians promptly, they completely failed to rebut the complainant’s critical evidence, specifically, that the product could not be successfully repaired and that it was taken away by their technician in October 2024 and never returned.

• Retaining a consumer's defective product indefinitely during its warranty period without providing a resolution was unequivocally categorized as a Deficiency in Service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

  
  

Relief Granted

The Commission partly allowed the complaint and issued the following directives to Eureka Forbes Ltd., to be executed within 45 days from the date of the order:

1. Repair, Replacement, or Refund: The opposite party must return the fully repaired vacuum cleaner to the complainant at its own expense. If the unit is beyond repair, they must either provide a brand-new vacuum cleaner of the same model or refund the full purchase price of ₹3,699.

2. Compensation for Mental Agony: The manufacturer was ordered to pay ₹2,000 to the complainant as compensation for the mental harassment and financial inconvenience caused.

3. Litigation Expenses: The Commission awarded ₹1,500 to the complainant to cover her legal costs.

   
   

Legal Significance

These ruling echoes a growing judicial intolerance toward poor corporate after-sales support in India. Similar to recent consumer forum precedents—such as the Ernakulam Consumer Commission's ruling in Augstine K.A. v. Eureka Forbes Ltd. (2025) https://www.mondaq.com/india/civil-law/1644596/kerala-consumer-commission-holds-eureka-forbes-liable-for-service-deficiency-under-cpa-2019 —this judgment underscores that a manufacturer's liability does not end at the point of sale. The timely resolution of technical defects under warranty is an absolute statutory obligation. Furthermore, it clarifies that merely "deputing technicians" does not absolve a company of liability if those visits fail to provide a meaningful, functional remedy to the consumer.

Conclusion

The judgment in Prakriti Mishra v. Eureka Forbes Ltd. reflects the evolving approach of Consumer Commissions in ensuring that businesses remain accountable throughout the consumer relationship. The decision underscores that a company's responsibility does not conclude upon receiving a complaint, it concludes only when the consumer receives a fair, timely, and effective resolution.

I had the privilege of representing the complainant in the present matter and securing a favourable order before the Consumer Commission. Judgments such as these continue to strengthen consumer rights and reinforce corporate accountability under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

#Eurekaforbes #kanoonidostvyaparsathi #gwaliordistrictcommission #consumerrights #advshailrendrarajput #eurekaforbesliable