New Delhi: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) flagged 5,008 consumer grievances against Eureka Forbes Ltd, owned by private-equity firm Advent International, relating to its water purifiers and after-sales service. It fined the company ₹5 lakh.
In its order, which Mint has reviewed, the CCPA found several claims concerning annual maintenance contracts (AMCs), warranty benefits and refund policies were misleading or inadequately disclosed.
Consequently, India’s apex imposed a ₹5 lakh penalty on Eureka Forbes and directed the company to strengthen disclosures to consumers, provide do-it-yourself videos or schematics for minor repairs, ensure the availability of genuine spare parts, and periodically review the way it addresses consumer grievances.
According to the order, dated 5 August, the regulator took suo motu cognisance of complaints registered on the National Consumer Helpline (NCH) between 1 April 2023 and 27 June 2024. “Of the 5,008 complaints, 2,161 related to delays in providing services, 1,742 to after-sales service not being provided, 349 to charges for repairs despite warranty coverage and 301 to defective products where consumers alleged that replacement or refunds were not provided,” it said. Other complaints related to problems after repairs, non-delivery or damaged products, misleading advertisements, and alleged fraud.
This assumes significance given Eureka Forbes’s around 40% market share in India’s water-purifier segment, as per Crisil Ratings. According to Eureka Forbes’s Q1FY27 results, the company’s water-purifier business recorded high-teens revenue growth, driven by double-digit volume growth and pricing. Overall revenue rose 15.3% year-on-year to ₹700.8 crore in the quarter.
Queries sent to spokespersons for the department of consumer affairs, Eureka Forbes and its managing director & chief executive officer Pratik Pota remained unanswered at the time of publishing.
‘Misleading’ terms
In its preliminary inquiry, the found that some consumers had been provided details of products and services at the time of purchase that differed from the actual terms of the AMC. The regulator also examined allegations that technicians demanded payments amounting to around 50% of the product’s value despite such charges allegedly being contrary to the AMC’s terms.
A key concern was Eureka Forbes’s advertising of “lifetime free re-installation and uninstallation”, described as a benefit worth ₹1,400 offered for free. The CCPA order said the use of the word “lifetime” created an impression that the benefit would remain available throughout the period of ownership, and that material limitations governing the benefit were not adequately disclosed. It held that the absence of a clear disclosure altered the overall impression created by the advertisement and made the claim misleading.
The regulator also found the company’s “30 days money-back guarantee” coupled with a “no-questions-asked” return policy to be misleading. According to the order, the advertisement created the impression that consumers could return the product within 30 days without additional conditions, while the actual terms imposed restrictions that could make a product ineligible for return.
The CCPA also scrutinised claims relating to unlimited service visits for breakdowns, annual replacement of all filters, free replacement of spare parts, one-time replacement of consumables, and service within 24 hours. The authority said the terms and conditions governing these benefits were not adequately disclosed to consumers.
Expert take
Experts said after-sales service remains a major concern for consumers, particularly delays in service and difficulties in getting repairs and replacement parts despite warranty or AMC coverage.
“The CCPA’s findings highlight a larger concern with after-sales service, where consumers may be attracted by headline promises such as free service, unlimited visits or money-back guarantees, but face conditions and exclusions later. Companies need to ensure that all material terms are disclosed clearly at the time of purchase and that their service partners follow the same commitments made to ,” said Ashim Sanyal, managing trustee of ConsumerVoice, a consumer rights organization.
Vijay Kumar, partner at law firm Fox Mandal, said, “From a legal standpoint, the issue is not merely whether the service was eventually provided, but whether the consumer was given complete and accurate information before entering into the transaction. Where material conditions or exclusions attached to an advertised benefit are not adequately disclosed, the representation can be examined as a misleading advertisement and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.”
Consumer woes
The CCPA order cited individual consumer complaints to illustrate the concerns. In one case, a consumer who had bought an AMC alleged that a technician sought payment for replacement of filters and other components. In another, a customer was told that a ₹530 service charge would apply despite them having an AMC.
In some cases, the company’s service partners delayed the replacement of parts even after consumers had provided the product model details, resulting in the AMC period expiring without the essential components being replaced. In one such complaint, a consumer said that despite booking a time slot through the company’s app and providing details of the complaint, the technician did not turn up at the scheduled time.
Defence rejected
The CCPA also examined the company’s representations around timely complaint resolution. Eureka Forbes told the regulator that it had launched its ‘Gatiman’ programme to improve service response, and that it received around 300-400 complaints a month from the National Consumer Helpline, of which 94% were resolved within two days.
Eureka Forbes had told the authority it had taken disciplinary action against service providers over consumer-related fraud, including termination of contractual relationships and filing of first information reports (FIRs). It also said it had introduced measures to improve its service network and complaint resolution.
However, the regulator said the company’s submissions did not establish that the grievances had actually been satisfactorily resolved and pointed to deficiencies in the handling of consumer complaints.
The Indian water-purifier market is projected to grow from $3.95 billion in 2026 to $7.50 billion by 2034, at a compound annual growth rate of 8.4%, according to IMARC Group.