In re Eureka Forbes Ltd. (CCPA Delhi)
Summary: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), comprising Chief Commissioner Smt. Nidhi Khare and Commissioner Shri Anupam Mishra, passed an order dated 05.08.2026 concerning alleged misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices by Eureka Forbes Ltd. in relation to the sale and servicing of water purifiers. The proceedings arose after the CCPA took suo-motu cognizance of 508 grievances registered before the National Consumer Helpline between 1 April 2023 and 27 June 2024 concerning after-sales service of Eureka Forbes water purifiers. The grievances included delay in providing services, non-provision of after-sales services, charging for repairs or repairs not undertaken during warranty, defective products, recurrence of problems after repair, product delivery issues, damaged or lost products, overcharging and misleading advertisements. The aggregate grievance data referred to in the order contained 5,008 complaints.
The CCPA’s preliminary inquiry recorded concerns regarding annual maintenance plans, including alleged delays in availability of spare parts, expiry of AMC periods without replacement of essential components or filters, demands for payments despite AMC terms, repeated standardised responses promising service attendance within 24 hours without actual service, and advertisements concerning “Get Free Lifetime Re-installation and Uninstallation” and a “30 days money-back guarantee” with a “no-questions-asked” return policy.
A notice dated 05.07.2024 was issued to Eureka Forbes seeking responses concerning the Annual Maintenance Contract, action against errant repair/service personnel, the average lifespan of candles and other components under geographical and water-quality conditions, and consumer grievances. Eureka Forbes submitted its response on 22.07.2024. The company stated, among other things, that it had a large customer base, had not engaged in unfair trade practices, had provided necessary clarification regarding service, replacement and refund terms, maintained ISO 9001:2015-certified manufacturing units, operated a Quality Assurance System, and had validated water purifier products through third-party testing.
The CCPA found the response inadequate on several aspects. It noted that Eureka Forbes had not placed on record whether actual and satisfactory redressal had been provided to consumers and had not specifically addressed the promises made at the time of AMC sale and alleged later-stage limitations. The Authority also considered the substantial number of grievances as indicating that consumers were not adequately informed about the actual terms, conditions, limitations and deficiencies associated with the AMC. The matter was consequently forwarded to the Director General (Investigation), CCPA.
The Director General’s investigation report dated 04.11.2025 recorded, among other matters, the company’s admission of lapses in relation to consumer complaints, disciplinary action against service providers, insufficiency of grievance data and doubts regarding the adequacy of certain test reports. The report also considered the company’s data concerning complaints received and resolved during different years and the absence of adequate information concerning several requested technical parameters.
During the hearing on 15.12.2025, representatives of Eureka Forbes submitted that water purifiers require regular service intervention and that many NCH grievances represented service requests. The company referred to its “Gathiman” service-acceleration programme, company-owned and company-operated service centres, technician applications, escalation mechanisms, performance-linked incentives, refunds or exchanges in certain cases and its Central Escalation Management Desk. The company also submitted information concerning disciplinary measures taken against employees, technicians and franchisee service partners.
After considering the submissions and investigation findings, the CCPA examined the statutory framework under the [Consumer Protection Act, 2019].The Authority referred to Section 2(28), which defines “misleading advertisement”, and Section 2(47), concerning “unfair trade practice”. It also considered the statutory requirements relating to truthful advertising, disclosure of important information and representations concerning warranties, guarantees, replacement, maintenance or repair.
The CCPA identified five principal claims made in connection with the AMC: unlimited service visits and annual all-filter replacement with free replacement of spare parts; one-time replacement of consumables; assured service timelines; lifetime free re-installation and uninstallation; and a 30-days money-back guarantee with a no-questions-asked return policy.
On the first category, the Authority considered AMC documentation stating that filters would be replaced free of charge and damaged parts would be replaced with new spare parts free of charge. It also considered terms providing for additional visits during the contract period to attend to repairs or malfunctioning without charge. The CCPA found that consumer grievances and material evidence demonstrated instances where charges were imposed despite the representations. The order refers to specific consumer examples, including charges for iron cartridges and a service charge despite the relevant coverage.
Regarding one-time replacement of consumables, the Authority relied upon AMC terms stating that one set of consumables would be replaced during the one-year validity of the genuine Annual Maintenance Plan. The CCPA held that charging consumers for covered replacement was contrary to the stated contractual terms and also considered delays in availability of spare parts which resulted in AMC periods expiring without replacement of essential components or filters.
With respect to the “Service Within 24 Hours and Complaint Resolution Within 1 Hour” representation, the CCPA considered the Gathiman programme and the company’s message assuring consumers that a technician would visit within the next 24 working hours. The Authority compared these representations with NCH data and concluded that there was a dissonance between the promised service and the service experienced by consumers, including instances where service was not provided or was delayed by several days or months.
The CCPA further examined the representation of “Free Lifetime Re-installation and Uninstallation. Worth ₹1400/-, now free”. According to the order, the subsequent limitation disclosed when consumers sought to use the service was that the offer was confined to five years from purchase and two instances of free reinstallation. The Authority considered the undisclosed limitations to materially curtail the original representation and render the advertisement misleading.
The “30 days money-back guarantee” coupled with a “no-questions-asked” return policy was also examined. The CCPA considered a grievance involving a consumer who purchased a water purifier on 23.03.2024 and initiated a return request on 13.04.2024, within the advertised period, but encountered a website message stating that the product was no longer eligible for return. The Authority considered this inconsistent with the representation held out to consumers.
The CCPA ultimately held that the conduct of Eureka Forbes in handling consumer claims and grievances reflected inconsistency in remedial measures and inadequate evidence of effective communication with consumers. It found no merit in the company’s contentions and concurred with the findings and concerns recorded in the investigation report. The Authority held that the company had contravened provisions relating to consumer rights, engaged in misleading advertisements and adopted unfair trade practices.
Invoking Section 21 of the [Consumer Protection Act, 2019](https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/consumer-protection-act-2019.html), the CCPA considered the statutory framework governing directions and penalties for false or misleading advertisements and the factors relevant to determining penalty under Section 21(7). The Authority directed Eureka Forbes to initiate provision of Do-it-Yourself (DIY) videos/schematics for minor repairs or replacement of parts such as candles and filters and ensure wide availability of genuine spare parts. It further directed truthful disclosure of relevant information at the point of sale and sensitisation of authorised service providers concerning fair disclosure of AMC terms and conditions.
The company was also directed to periodically conduct self-audits concerning consumer redressal and NCH grievances to ensure that deceptive trade practices under the garb of AMC were not practised. The CCPA imposed a penalty of ₹5,00,000 on Eureka Forbes for misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice and directed submission of a compliance report to the CCPA within 15 days from the date of the order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY
1. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (hereinafter referred to as CCPA) has been established under section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 to regulate matters relating to violation of rights of consumer, unfair trade practices, false and misleading advertisement which are prejudicial to the interest of public and consumers and to promote, protect and enforce the rights of consumer as a class.
2. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), in exercise of its statutory mandate under Section 18(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred as Act), is entrusted with the function of preventing unfair trade practices and ensuring that no false or misleading advertisement is made in respect of any goods or services, and further to ensure that no advertisement of goods or services is issued in contravention of the provisions of the said Act or the rules and regulations framed thereunder.
3. In furtherance of the aforesaid mandate, the CCPA took suo-motu cognizance of the vast number (508) of grievances registered at National Consumer Helpline (NCH) from 1st April 2023 to 27th June 2024 against the Eureka Forbes Ltd. (hereinafter referred as opposite party) that were pertaining to after sales service of water purifiers.
3.1. The grievances related to issues such as delay or denial of services, failure to provide after-sales support, charged for repair or not repairs within the warranty period and publishing of misleading advertisements:
| S. No. | Nature of Grievances (from 1st April 2023 to 27th June 2024) | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Delay in Providing services | 2161 |
| 2 | After Sales Services not provided | 1742 |
| 3 | Charging for repair / Not repaired under warranty | 349 |
| 4 | Product found defective – No replacement / refund as per customer demand | 301 |
| 5 | Same Problem Persist After Repairing | 143 |
| 6 | Non Delivery of Product / desired Products | 62 |
| 7 | Product damaged / lost while providing services | 56 |
| 8 | Fraudulent Issue-Selling Fake/duplicate/counterfeit product | 45 |
| 9 | Overcharging | 21 |
| 10 | Other | 93 |
| 11 | Misleading Advertisements | 18 |
| 12 | Promised/offered gift not given | 17 |
| Grand Total | 5008 | |
3.2. Accordingly, a preliminary inquiry of the grievances registered on the NCH was undertaken, wherein it was found that:
1. The opposite party had engaged in unfair trade practices and misleading advertisement under the guise of offering annual maintenance plans.
ii. In certain instances, consumers had duly furnished the model details of the product to the authorized service centres, however, owing to undue delay in the availability of spare parts and in redressal of defects, the period of the Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) expired without replacement of essential components / filters.
iii. That technician demanded payment from the consumers amounting to approximately fifty per cent of the value of the product, despite such demand was contrary to the terms of the AMC.
iv. Inspite of the lodging of repeated service requests during the existence of the said AMC, the company merely issued standardised and automated responses assuring attendance within 24 hours, but the company failed to render any actual service or maintenance in pursuance thereof.
v. The advertisement issued at the time of purchase of the RO system, proclaiming “Get Free Lifetime Re-installation and Uninstallation,” was misleading.
vi. The alleged advertisement of “30 days money-back guarantee” coupled with a “no-questions-asked” return policy was also misleading. However, the claim was summarily repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the product was allegedly no longer eligible for return.
3.3. Therefore, more than 5000 grievances received by NCH indicated sizeable violation of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 impacting consumers as a class.
4. Accordingly, Notice dated 05.07.2024 was issued to the Opposite Party to submit response regarding the parameters, including the terms of Annual Maintenance Contract, action taken against the errant repair/service personnel who defrauded the consumers. Additionally, it was also asked to specify the average life span of candles and other components based on specific geographic and water alkalinity. Along with the Notice, the allegations made in various consumer grievances received across multiple categories such as delay in providing services, after sales services not being provided, charging for repair / not repaired under warranty period, product found defective and no replacement/ refund as per customer demand and misleading advertisement were also annexed. Thus, an opportunity was given to the opposite party to submit reply regarding the issues raised along with supporting documents, if any.
5. In response to the above Notice, a reply vide email dated 22.07.2024 was received from opposite party, wherein following submissions were made:-
5.1. Eureka Forbes Ltd. is a pioneer in the direct-to-home cleaning appliances industry and has won the trust and confidence of 2 million customers through its dedicated efforts, unmatched services, and offering new innovative products.
5.2. Eureka Forbes does not and has in the past indulged in any form of unfair trade practices.
5.3. The company had provided the necessary clarification with regards to the service replacement, refunds (as applicable) based on terms and conditions and the same may be seen on the NCH Portal wherein company has responded to the complaints.
5.4. It does not falsely represent its services or conceal information which are fairly disclosed to the customers. The terms and conditions of our products and services are mentioned at https://www.eurekaforbes.com/terms-and-conditions and are not misleading separately with products and services at the time of purchase.
5.5. All manufacturing units are ISO 9001:2015 certified and employed array of certifications.
5.6. The company has in place Quality Assurance System to ensure that the quality of components used, and the finished goods produced follow the defined specifications.
5.7. Company have validated Water Purifier products from third party renowned testing agencies (Aquadiagnostics Water Research & Technology Centre Ltd.) for life performance as per International Protocols and as per IS 16240:2023 standards for RO based water purifiers which are designed to capture a wide variety of water quality and supply site conditions existing in the field.
5.8. To cater to localised water quality issues like higher turbidity and iron, the company has optional attachments (for Water Purifier units) like external pre-filter and iron removal filters to address localised supply of water quality issues.
6. The reply submitted by the Opposite Party was examined by the CCPA and it was noted that:
6.1. It has neither placed on record whether any actual and satisfactory redressal was provided to the grievances of consumers, nor has it furnished any specific response to the queries raised in the Notice issued by the CCPA, particularly w.r.t. the promises made at the time of sale of AMC and the subsequent limitations allegedly disclosed to consumers at later stage of claim. Thus, posed prejudice to consumer rights and has given rise to substantial grievances.
6.2. Secondly, the emphasis of the opposite party in its reply, to the effect that the terms and conditions such as ‘free repair visits’, “1 hour service and complaint resolution”, “one time free replacements of consumables, pump replacements”, “Get Free Lifetime Re-installation and Uninstallation” etc. governing the products and services were separately disclosed to consumers at the time of purchase. However, the substantial number of grievances registered by consumers on the National Consumer Helpline (NCH) indicates that consumers were not adequately informed of the actual terms & conditions, clauses, limitations, and deficiencies in the AMC.
6.3. Thirdly, with respect to the pricing of the Annual Maintenance Contract, the remedial or disciplinary actions, if any, initiated against errant repair or service personnel alleged to have defrauded consumers, and the average life span of candles, filters, and other components, duly correlated with specific geographical conditions and variations in water alkalinity were all not provided.
6.4. Further, the company was unable to furnish any substantive reply or materials particularly addressing the aforesaid concerns raised in the Notice. Thus, CCPA was satisfied that there exists a prima-facie case of violation of consumer rights, misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice which lead to the necessity of further scrutiny. Therefore, vide letter dated 17.10.2024 CCPA forwarded the matter to DG (Investigation) CCPA for detailed investigation.
7. The Investigation report dated 04.11.2025 was received from DG (Investigation) CCPA wherein the following findings were submitted:
7.1. That regarding the high number of consumer complaints, they admitted that there were lapses on their part. Opposite party acknowledged that the deficiencies were primarily attributable to their service providers. They further stated that appropriate action has been taken and FIR has been filed against the service provider.
7.2. It was submitted that Eureka Forbes has taken strict disciplinary action against the service providers for the fraud committed against the customers, the actions included filing of FIRs, terminations of contract etc.
7.3. When detailed information regarding the grievances was sought from the company, the data furnished was found to be insufficient. The company merely provided a tabular summary indicating the number of complaints resolved at the end of the year, as shown in the table below. However, it could not be ascertained from the data that whether the redressal provided to the consumers was actually satisfactory:
| Year | No. of Complaints received during the year | Number of complaints resolved at close of the year |
|---|---|---|
| 2022-2023 | 36,44,840 | 34,20,345 |
| 2023-2024 | 39,45,982 | 37,12,546 |
| 2024-2025 | 42,39,029 | 39,93,876 |
7.4. Further, the company submitted response to the specific complaints mentioned in the Show Cause Notice, stating that some were resolved after service visits. However, in several cases, they were unable to locate resolution details due to incomplete or old data, which raises doubt whether those complaints were actually resolved, as no conclusive evidence was provided.
7.5. The company submitted two test reports (in-house and third party) indicating that the water purifiers can filter over 6000 litres of water. However, the third party report lacks NABL accreditation and does not specify the testing methodology and further raising doubts about its authenticity.
7.6. Moreover, it is observed that the test reports do not fully address the request and lack following.
| Requested Items | Present in Report | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| Average lifespan of candles / filters (i-Filter, Chemi-Block) | X | Not covered or mentioned |
| Lifespan of RO membrane | ✓ | Given (≈9400 L – 14100 L) |
| Lifespan of UV lamp | X | Not included |
| Lifespan of Taste Enhancer cartridge | X | Not included |
| Segmentation by geographic region | X | All tests done in lab under controlled water (750 ppm NaCl), no regional variation reported |
7.7. This deliberate lack of truthful and honest representation has eroded the consumers’ trust and misled them. Such trade practice has, therefore, caused adverse impact upon rights of consumers as a class.
7.8. Thus, a case of misleading advertisements, and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stands established.
8. In view of the findings in the DG (Investigation) Report and following principles of natural justice, CCPA vide after dated 05.12.2025 shared the investigation report with the opposite party to furnish their comments by 11.12.2025. Thereafter, an opportunity of hearing was also provided on 15.12.2025.
9. Vide email dated 11.12.2025 Ku. Shilpa Jain, Company Secretary & Compliance Officer of the opposite party submitted the following response:
9.1. Customer Facing Process:
The high volume of customer interaction reflects existing service healthcare inherent to the product category and not consumer dissatisfaction. Following measures are adopted by the company to enhance customer experience:
i. Transparent communication of all terms and conditions: To ensure full transparency, terms and conditions are clearly stated on invoices and/or official website of the company.
ii. AMC Pricing and Proposition: The details of category of AMC, along with their price range and benefits, are mentioned on the website of the company.
AMC Products |
Base |
Silver |
Gold |
Platinum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Repair visit |
Free Repair visits |
Free Repair visits |
Free Repair visits |
Free Repair visits |
Maintenance visit |
1 Free Maintenance visit per year |
1 Free Maintenance visit per year |
2 Free Maintenance visits per year |
3 Free Maintenance visits per year |
Consumables |
25% Discount on Consumables (once during the AMC period) |
One Set Free Consumable Kit per year excluding maintenance to be charged at 50% discount |
One Free Consumable Kit every year |
One Free Consumable Kit every year |
iii. Service Improvement Interventions: It is stated that service improvement is an ongoing process and the company has implemented several structural, operational and technology-led initiatives to improve responsiveness, service, reliability and overall customer satisfaction.
a) The Company has, in furtherance of strengthening its service delivery and grievance redressal framework, launched “Gathiman programme” in the year 2022, a structured service-acceleration programme designed to operationalize a nationwide 1 hour fulfilment model for installations and resolution of customer complaints.
b) With a view to reinforcing service governance in regions experiencing persistent operational challenges, the Company, commencing from the year 2023, established twenty-five company-owned and company-operated (COCO) service centers across nine cities. The said centers were instituted to ensure standardization of service processes, enforce quality control mechanisms, and facilitate expeditious resolution of customer grievances.
9.2. Consequent Management: Action taken and Intervention:
i. The Company affirms that it accords the priority to customer grievances and adopted approach against errant service personnel, service technicians, and franchisee service partners by initiation of disciplinary action, which includes, issuance of warning letters, imposition of penalties, termination of engagement and initiation of criminal proceedings wherever warranted.
a) During Financial Year 2024-25 (FY’25): The services of two service technicians and one franchisee service partner were terminated. Warning letters, monetary penalties, and other disciplinary actions were imposed against four employees, two service technicians, and four franchisee service partners.
b) During the Financial Year 2026 (FY’26): A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against one employee. The services of one employee, five service technicians, and one franchisee service partner were terminated. Warning letters, penalties, and other disciplinary measures were issued against two employees, ten service technicians, and one franchisee service partner.
ii. The Company has implemented a penalty and consequence framework including non-fulfilment of complaints within twenty four hours and is applicable to its service partners, service technicians, and employees, in accordance with the governing contractual and applicable provisions.
iii. Product Technical Details: As per prevailing regulatory requirements, all domestic RO water purification systems are mandated to comply with IS 16240:2023. These systems typically comprise lifespan of 6000 liters for an I-Filter, Chemi-Block, Membrane, UV Lamp, and Taste Enhancer. Except for the 5000 burning hours for the UV lamp.
10. During the hearing held on 15.12.2025, Shri Suresh Redu, Chief Technical Officer (R&D), Shri Vivek Sharma, Chief Quality and Regulatory Office, Shri Nithyanand Shankar, Chief Business Officer (Customer Service), Ku. Shilpa Jain, Company Secretary & Compliance Officer appeared on behalf of the opposite party and submitted the following:
10.1. The nature of water purifier is that it requires regular service intervention and grievances at NCH are not complaints rather they are service requests and therefore the concept of AMC has been brought into play.
10.2. In recent time it has launched “Gathiman”, a structured service-acceleration programme towards 1 hour fulfilment for resolution of customer complaints. Also it is a company-owned and company-operated (COCO) service centers to improve the consumer experience.
10.3. On an average, the company receives 300-400 complaints in a month from the channel of NCH and 93% to 94% complaints are resolved within 2 days. In the past there was no forum to raise an issue as company maintained redressal through their authorised partners and relied only on offline network.
10.4. The Company introduced a technology-enabled, next-generation technician application providing real-time operational visibility and enabling systematic prioritization of escalated work orders. In addition thereto, a dedicated Supervisor Application was deployed, granting frontline supervisory personnel direct oversight of escalated matters, thereby ensuring timely closure of customer grievances.
10.5. In order to effectively manage seasonal surges in customer service requests and to maintain prescribed service quality standards during peak periods, the Company, from the year 2023 onwards, implemented periodic performance-linked incentive schemes for service personnel.
10.6. Additionally, in several issues company have taken appropriate step to issue refund or exchange the product. However, in some cases consumers have denied refund and has opted for renewal of AMC.
10.7. Moreover, from the year 2024, the Company has also established a Central Escalation Management Desk tasked with the real-time monitoring, prioritisation, and resolution of escalated customer cases. Further, the Company has deployed an advanced Online Reputation Management (ORM) and social-listening system, which continuously monitors customer complaints on digital platforms and improves escalation and response mechanisms.
11. The Central Authority, after careful consideration of the submissions (oral and written) made by the opposite party as well as the findings recorded in the investigation report observes that —
11.1. Section- 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines “misleading advertisement” in relation to any product or service to mean an advertisement:
i) falsely describes such product or service; or
ii) gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or
iii) conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or
iv) deliberately conceals important information;
11.2. Under Section 2(47) of the Act ‘unfair trade practice’ refers to the practice when for the objective of promoting the use or supply of any service, any person, adopts unfair or deceptive practice inter-alia any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record which representation that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have or representation that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have.
11.3. Inter alia, the statute prescribes that making of any representation to the public which, in form or substance, purports to constitute a promise, warranty, or guarantee to replace, maintain, or repair an article or any part thereof, or to repeat or continue a service until the attainment of a specified result, where such representation is materially misleading in nature or where there exists no reasonable likelihood that the said warranty, guarantee, or promise shall be honoured or fulfilled amounts to unfair trade practice thereby manipulating informed decision making of consumers.
12. From a bare reading of the above provisions of the Act, it is clear that any advertisement should:
i. contain truthful & honest representation of facts,
ii. Not indulge in unfair Trade practice as defined in Section 2(47) of the Act. It should be free from false representation that the goods/services are of particular standard, approval, performance or benefits [(Section 2(47) (d)] and should not make false or misleading representation concerning the need for or usefulness of any goods or services (Section 2(47) (f) and further a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof if such purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that such warranty, guarantee or promise will be carried out Section 2(47) (h — [B]) of Consumer Protection Act with respect to unfair trade practice.
iii. Disclose important information in such a manner that they are clear, prominent and extremely hard to miss for viewers/consumers so as to not conceal important information.
iv. The underlying object of consumer protection legislation is to empower consumers by ensuring access to complete, accurate, and transparent information, thereby enabling them to make informed choices. In furtherance of this objective, with the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor has undergone a marked transformation, giving rise to the principle of caveat venditor.
13. Upon consideration of the material placed on record, including the terms of the Warranty and Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC), consumer grievances, investigation reports, and annexed documents, prima facie it was observed that the Opposite Party made following claims at the time of selling the AMC:
i. Unlimited service visits for breakdown, Annual All Filter Replacement, Replacement of spare parts shall be made free of charge.
ii. One-time replacement of consumables.
iii. Assured service (within 24 hours) timelines.
iv. Lifetime free re-installation and uninstallation, worth ₹ 1400/-, now free.
v. 30-days money-back guarantee with a no-questions-asked return policy.
13.1. “Unlimited service visits for breakdown, Annual All Filter Replacement, and Replacement of spare parts”:
The document provided to the consumer at the time of taking AMC states that:
“All Filter get replaced free of charge, every year for continued purity assurance”.
“On breakdown, damaged parts shall be replaced with new spare parts free of charge”. (Annexure-1)
Further, the terms governing the Warranty and the Annual Maintenance Contract which is provided to consumers once he has availed the Warranty / AMC in its para 5 states that:
“Any additional visit during the contract period as and when required, on the event of any repair visit / malfunctioning of the product on consumer’s complaint shall be attended free of charge….”. (Annexure-2)
Upon consideration of the consumer grievances it is noted that the Opposite Party had expressly represented that unlimited service visits and replacement of spare parts including malfunctioning of the product on consumers complaint would be provided free of cost during the existence of the relevant coverage period of AMC. Contrary to these express assurances, the material evidence demonstrates that consumers were, in fact, subjected to the levy of charges for spare parts during the operative period of the said coverage. This conduct, is being in direct contradiction to the representations so made, and constitutes a clear breach of the terms forming the basis of the contractual relationship between the parties. The imposition of charges is in derogation of such assurances which is not only arbitrary and unjustified but also undermines the objective of fair trade w.r.t. transparency in disclosures that govern consumer transactions. Accordingly, such conduct on the part of the Opposite Party is unsustainable.
Example: Consumers (Docket No. 4521558 Ms. Priyanka Bid & 4415101 Mr. Pramod kumar) had initially availed repair services in respect of a water purifier under a valid AMC. Further, completion of the first service visit, the technician had undertaken certain repairs; however, the water purifier ceased to function properly shortly thereafter, indicating that the defect had not been effectively rectified. In view of the persisting malfunction, the consumer was constrained to requisition a second service visit.
During this subsequent visit, the attending technician proceeded to replace the water filters, which, as per the terms of the subsisting AMC, were covered and ought to have been provided without any additional charge. In addition thereto, the technician replaced iron cartridges, being pre-filtration components intended for the removal of excessive dissolved iron, rust particles, and metallic odour from the water supply, and levied a charge of ₹1,195/- for the same.
Additionally, para 40 of the terms of warranty provided to the consumers after engaging in the contract mentions that:
“For any repairs required / conducted beyond the period of the annual maintenance contract, the same shall be provided on a chargeable basis. Service charge of ₹. 530/- shall be charged per visit by the service technician.” (Annexure-3)
It is noted that certain restrictive conditions governing the levy of charges for services and/or spare parts during the course of the warranty or AMC were neither disclosed nor brought to the notice of the consumer at the time of sale, i.e. at the stage of formation of the contract. Instead, such conditions were introduced and enforced only at the stage when the consumer approached for availing services subsequent to the registration and payment of AMC which is in contradiction b/w disclosures made at the point of sale and disclosures made in the terms and conditions. The imposition of undisclosed and restrictive conditions, after having induced the consumer into the transaction on the basis of assured benefits, constitutes a clear case of misrepresentation and amounts to an unfair trade practice. Such conduct is not only contradictory to contractual fairness but also vitiates the very basis of informed consumer consent. Further, it strikes at the root of consumers right to be informed and therefore, cannot be permitted.
Example: Consumer (5395371 Rojalin Mohanty and 4693702 Mr. Ravi Kiran N) at the time of purchase of a water purifier on 18.06.2022, was expressly assured that the product would be accompanied by two complimentary services to be availed at intervals of six months within a period of one year. However, when the consumer sought to avail the second complimentary service on 25.05.2023 within the warranty period, a charge of ₹530/- was levied. This instance unequivocally demonstrates a failure on the part of the Opposite Party to honour its express assurances and reflects a false representation regarding the value and extent of services offered.
13.2. One-Time Free Replacement of Consumables,”
The Terms and Conditions of the Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC), as framed by the Opposite Party which is provided to consumers once he have availed the Warranty / AMC, expressly and unequivocally entitles the consumer for one-time free replacement of as stated in its para 1 (b) that:
“Only one set of consumables shall be replaced for all the products, during one year of the validity of the genuine Annual Maintenance Plan.” (Annexure-4)
In light of the explicit stipulations embodied in the AMC, the levy of charges towards replacement of consumables, at the stage when the consumer sought to avail benefits i.e. one free consumable kit squarely covered under the AMC including Gold AMC, is contrary and in direct violation of the binding contractual terms. The Opposite Party, having voluntarily undertaken such obligations, cannot resile therefrom to the detriment of the consumer. Such conduct constitutes a clear breach of contractual obligations. Further, in instances consumers had duly furnished the model details of the product to the authorized service centers, the Opposite Party failed to ensure timely availability of requisite spare parts and to effectuate prompt redressal of defects. As a consequence of such inordinate delays attributable solely to the Opposite Party, the tenure of the AMC lapsed without the replacement of essential components and/or filters to which the consumers were contractually entitled.
13.3. “Service Within 24 Hours and Complaint Resolution Within 1 Hour”:
The documents on record of opposite party including mention of Gatiman Program under service improvement intervention head states that:
The Company launched Gatiman Program in 2022, a service-acceleration program enabling a nationwide 1 hour fulfillment model for installation and complaint resolution. (Annexure-5)
The above initiatives cited by the Opposite Party in its submission dated 11.12.2025 namely the “Gathiman Programme 2022, a nationwide 1 hour fulfilment model for installations and resolution of customer complaints” incentive schemes, Central Escalation Desk, and ORM system are analyzed by CCPA not on the basis of their stated objectives or formal institutional existence, but on effectiveness in securing timely and satisfactory redressal of consumer grievances.
Given that a water purifier constitutes an essential household appliance, directly impacting daily cooking, potable water safety, and the overall well-being of consumers, the failure to provide prompt and effective after-sales service as promised assumes heightened significance.
The company’s message to consumers on their mobile number also assures that:
“Dear customer, your complaint no. is…. Our technician will visit within next 24 working hours to attend your request”. (Annexure-6)
The submissions of the Opposite Party read in conjunction with data obtained from the NCH, reveals a clear dissonance between the representations made at the point of sale such as assured service within 24 hours or complaint resolution within 1 hour and the actual service delivery experienced by consumers wherein the either the service was not provided and if provided was after a period of several days or months. This stark divergence between promise and performance cannot be regarded as trivial or inadvertent. Thus, such representations, having induced consumer reliance, assume the character of binding assurances, the breach of which constitutes a serious lapse in the discharge of contractual obligations. The Opposite Party cannot absolve of its binding contractual obligations to render timely, efficient, and effective after-sales support as expressly promised.
13.4. “Assurances of Lifetime Free Re-Installation And Uninstallation”:
The advertisement issued at the time of purchase of the RO system categorically proclaimed
“Free Lifetime Re-installation and Uninstallation. Worth ₹ 1400/-, now free” (Annexure-7)
The expression “lifetime,” when employed in commercial representations of this nature, conveys to a reasonable and prudent consumer that the benefit shall endure for the entire operational life of the product. However, subsequent limitation was disclosed when the consumer claims to avail such service, the limitation was that the offer was in fact confined to a period of five years from the date of purchase and limited to two instances of free reinstallation constitutes a material curtailment of the original representation. The imposition of such material limitations, absent prior and clear disclosure, materially alters the substance of the representation and renders the original advertisement misleading.
13.5. The Opposite Party had prominently assured prospective purchasers through their misleading advertisement of:
“30 days money-back guarantee” coupled with a “no-questions-asked’ return policy, (Annexure-8)
The impugned advertisement / claim appears, on its face, designed ostensibly to instill consumer confidence and to stimulate the sale of the Opposite Party’s water purifiers. By its plain and natural meaning, such advertisement / claim constitutes a clear assurance that any consumer, upon invoking the stipulated return policy within the prescribed period, would be entitled to obtain a refund without any impediment. However, it is evident from the grievance registered on the NCH that when the consumer sought to avail of the aforesaid assurance, the claim was summarily repudiated on the ground that the product was allegedly no longer eligible for return. This stance is prima facie inconsistent with the advertisement / claim held out to the consumers.
Example: A consumer purchased the water purifier on 23.03.2024 and initiated a return request on 13.04.2024, which falls within the advertised return period. Notwithstanding the same, when the consumer attempted to submit the return request through the Opposite Party’s website, an error message was displayed stating that the product was no longer eligible for return. This denial or disclosure of limiting conditions at the time of purchase, further substantiates the allegation that the representation was deceptive in effect and operation.
In view of the foregoing, such conduct, therefore, bears the indicia of a misleading advertisement, inasmuch as it induces consumers to make a purchase on the faith of a representation that is not honoured in practice and contravenes the principles of fair trade practice.
13.6. Inter-alia, during the hearing, the authorized representative of the Company was unable to place on record any defined parameters or objective criteria governing the determination of refund eligibility in matters where consumers were not satisfied with the AMC service of the opposite party. Further, the representative was also unable to furnish documentary evidence or consolidated data indicating the quantum or particulars of refunds already issued by the Company. They merely indicated the actions taken against authorized service partner subsequent to the Notice of CCPA and admitted the lapses in consumer grievance resolution process.
14. Considering the above, the absence of fair and transparent disclosures is concealment of important information regarding the impugned services offered for sale. It further emerges that such terms and drawbacks were disclosed to consumers only at the stage when claims were raised during the subsistence of the AMC, thereby indicating a lack of transparency and prior disclosure at the time of purchase. This lack of transparency not only causes confusion among consumers of ordinary prudence but also undermines consumer confidence, informed choice and potentially poses serious risks to health safety and monetary losses for the consumers.
15. It is imperative to mention that statutory provisions mandates diligence to be carried out for offering sale of goods and services and contravening the same, amounts to violation of consumer rights, misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice. In the present matter CCPA observed the following:
15.1. The advertisement / claims such as “Lifetime free re-installation and uninstallation, worth ₹ 1400/-, now free” and “30-days money-back guarantee with a no-questions-asked return policy” were found to be misleading as it has given a false guarantee and deliberately concealed important information to mislead consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service. Thus, obscures its commercial intent and renders the advertisement misleading.
15.2. The contentions of the Opposite Party w.r.t. claims such as “Unlimited service visits for breakdown, Annual All Filter Replacement, Replacement of spare parts shall be made free of charge”, “One-time replacement of consumables”, “Assured service (within 24 hours) timelines” is untenable. As the Opposite Party failed to make full, fair, and truthful disclosures by way of omission or breach of contractual obligations for the guarantee of service given at the time of sale of product and thus, constituted unfair trade practices.
15.3. The NCH data and the consumer grievances revealed concealment and discrepancies of material information relating to essential contractual provisions and restrictive clauses in AMC at the point of sale and the absence of such fair, and clear disclosure does not satisfy the explicit informed consent in consumer transactions. This further indicates lack of robust mechanism for redressal of consumer grievances, even when the same was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party.
15.4. It is noted that explicit informed consent refers to a specific, informed and unambiguous indication of an individual’s choice / option, given through a statement or by a clear affirmative action, which indicates agreement to a specific product or services provided by the company. The process flow for obtaining consent through any user interface shall be designed in such a way that consent cannot be taken from the consumer without going through the applicable terms and conditions, if any.
15.5. The authorized service providers of the company acts as the opposite party’s extended operational arm and has injured the rights of consumers to fair and transparent disclosure to ascertain whether replacement, repair, or maintenance services in respect of the products were covered under the Annual Maintenance Plan (AMC) or not. Such failure defeats the statutory mandate of transparency, informed consent, and consumer autonomy and consumer rights as envisaged under the consumer protection law.
15.6. It is appropriate to reiterate that the opposite party has failed to adhere to the obligations of disclosure at the time when the goods and services were offered for sale to consumers, whether directly by the company or through its authorized service providers. Hence, this violates Section 2 [9 (ii & vi)] of the Act which includes right to be informed about the product or services as the case may be so to protect the consumers against unfair trade practices and the rights to consumer awareness.
16. For the foregoing reasons, CCPA is of the view that the conduct of the opposite party in handling their claims and grievances reflects inconsistency in the remedial measures adopted, coupled with a lack of adequate evidence demonstrating effective communication with consumers. Consequently, the CCPA finds no merit in the Opposite Party’s contentions and concurs with the findings and concerns recorded in the Director General (Investigation)’s Report, as well as its own observations. Accordingly, the CCPA holds that the Opposite Party has contravened the provisions relating to consumer rights, engaged in misleading advertisements, and adopted unfair trade practices. In view of the nature and extent of the violations established, the CCPA is of the opinion that it is also necessary to levy a penalty.
17. The CCPA is empowered under Section- 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to issue directions to the advertiser of false or misleading advertisement to discontinue or modify the advertisement and if necessary, it may, by order, impose a penalty which may extend to 10 lakh and for every subsequent contravention may extend to 50 lakh.
18. Further, Section 21 (7) of the above Act prescribes that following may be regarded while determining the penalty against false or misleading advertisement:-
a. the population and the area impacted or affected by such offence;
b. the frequency and duration of such offence;
c. the vulnerability of the class of persons likely to be adversely affected by such offence;
d. the gross revenue from the sales effected by virtue of such offence.
19. In view of the above, the CCPA hereby issues the following directions:
i. To initiate providing Do it Yourself (DIY) Videos/Schematics for minor repairs or replacement of parts such as candles/filters and provide wide availability of genuine spare parts in the markets.
ii. To ensure a truthful disclosure of all relevant information at the point where goods are offered for sale by the opposite party and sensitize their Authorized Service Providers for fair disclosure of terms and conditions of AMC.
iii. The opposite party shall periodically carry out self-audit pertaining to the satisfaction of consumer redressal w.r.t. grievances registered on NCH and ensure that such deceptive trade practice under the garb of AMC are not practised in interest of consumers.
iv. The opposite shall pay a penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- for indulging in misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice.
v. The opposite party shall submit a compliance report to CCPA on the above directions within 15 days from the date of this Order.
20. The above order and directions are passed in exercise of the powers conferred upon CCPA under section 10, 18, 20, 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
