3 min readMumbaiJun 19, 2026 01:14 PM IST
A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Maharashtra has directed Eureka Forbes and its regional service centre to pay a man Rs 25,000 in compensation and litigation expenses, along with a refund of an annual maintenance contract fee, after finding “deficient service” in the assured periodic servicing.
The Commission in Raigad-Alibaug passed an ex parte order on June 16 after Eureka Forbes and the service centre failed to respond to the summons.
“The complainant availed services from the opposite party by paying the Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) charges. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to receive defect-free service from the opposite party. The opposite party has failed to provide error-free service to the complainant,” the Commission noted.
The Commission directed payment of Rs 15,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs, both to be paid within 45 days. It also directed the refund of the Rs 4,654 fee along with interest.
Deficient service
The man, a lawyer based in Alibaug, told the Commission that he bought a water purifier in 2017 from a local shop for Rs 18,000.
In 2025, he received a WhatsApp message offering an annual maintenance contract costing Rs 4,654, which included two free servicing sessions, a complimentary filter change, and replacement of parts if they developed any faults.
The lawyer told the Commission that when he booked a servicing appointment on April 29, 2025, no representative came to his home. When he called Eureka Forbes’s call centre the next day, he received no adequate solution.
Story continues below this ad
For the next two weeks, despite repeated service appointments scheduled by the company, no technician arrived, with the complainant making at least 60-70 follow-up calls. The complainant added that when a technician from the authorised service centre, Pratiksha Enterprises, finally visited, he demanded an additional Rs 610 to install the fifth filter.
The complainant said that despite buying a prepaid contract, he was asked for money and received deficient service.
He also conducted a verification, which revealed that the company had registered an incorrect serial number for a downgraded model variant-RO plus UV, instead of the complainant’s RO plus UV plus UF configuration water purifier.
