The Purifier That Failed Five Times
On 5 February a Jaipur resident bought a ₹28,000 water purifier for the two-room tuition centre from which she earns her living. Within seven months it failed five times: the pump burned out twice, the tank leaked once, and twice the unit simply stopped filtering. She has three written complaints, four service visits, and no reply from the company for the last four months.
The dealer now says the warranty covers parts only and offers a replacement unit “as a goodwill gesture”, asking her to sign a form that reads “full and final settlement”. She wants the price back, ₹50,000 for 14 cancelled classes and ₹10,000 for mental agony. A neighbour tells her she can claim nothing because she uses the purifier for a business and because the warranty has its own conditions. She does not know where to file or how long she has.
1. Is she a 'consumer' for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, given that the purifier is installed at her tuition centre? Answer the neighbour's objection about the warranty as well.
Read the worked answer
Yes, she is a consumer - but the reasoning matters.
Section 2(7) covers any person who buys goods for consideration. The exclusion is purchase for a commercial purpose, and the explanation to the definition includes goods bought and used by a person for earning a livelihood by means of self-employment. A two-room tuition centre run personally by her is self-employment: the purifier is used in the activity that earns her living, not to manufacture or trade in goods and services on a commercial scale. Had it been a coaching company with twenty branches buying fifty purifiers, the answer would be that the purchase was for a commercial purpose.
The warranty objection is misconceived. A warranty is a contractual promise between the seller and the buyer. It does not reduce the statutory rights available for a defect in goods or deficiency in service. Selling a purifier that fails five times in seven months is a defect; four service visits without a cure and four months of silence are a deficiency in service. The dealer's “parts only” line also cannot override the seller's liability for defective goods.
The neighbour is wrong on both counts.
2. Which consumer commission has jurisdiction, what is the time limit, and what should she attach to the complaint?
Read the worked answer
Forum: District Commission, Jaipur.
Jurisdiction has three tests, all of which she satisfies:
- Pecuniary. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as amended, the District Commission hears claims up to ₹50 lakh, the State Commission above ₹50 lakh and up to ₹2 crore, and the National Commission above ₹2 crore. Consideration paid ₹28,000 plus compensation claimed ₹60,000 is far inside the District limit. She should not inflate the claim to reach another forum.
- Territorial. The opposite party (dealer/service centre) works in Jaipur, and she resides there.
- Subject. A defect in goods and deficiency in service are covered.
Time limit: two years from the cause of action - the date of the last defective service or the refusal to remedy. Her last complaint is four months old, so she is well within time. If she were late, she would file an application for condonation explaining the delay.
Documents. Invoice dated 5 February; warranty card; the four service reports; copies of the three written complaints and proof of dispatch; the dealer's written refusal; bills and a log showing the 14 cancelled classes; and a short affidavit of facts. Filing can be done online through e-Daakhil with the prescribed fee, in person or through a registered consumer association.
3. Should she sign the 'full and final settlement' form to take the replacement? Advise her on how to protect the claim while getting the machine working.
Read the worked answer
No - not on the dealer's form as written.
A signed “full and final settlement” is precisely the document that extinguishes the claim. It converts a live complaint into a closed contract, and the dealer's goodwill language would then be the only thing she can enforce.
The correct move is to separate the two things she wants:
- Accept the replacement in writing, without prejudice. A short letter - “I accept the replacement unit for use, without prejudice to my claim for compensation for the period of deprivation and for the cancelled classes” - keeps the remedy for the past alive while she gets a working machine now.
- Record the history. State that the replacement is the fifth service intervention, with dates, and that the earlier unit was defective.
- Refuse the form. If the dealer insists, strike out “full and final settlement”, write “accepted without prejudice” beside the signature, and keep a photograph of the altered form.
- Set a fresh test. If the replacement fails again, a fresh cause of action arises and the two-year clock restarts from that failure.
Reliefs she can press for before the District Commission: removal of the defect, replacement, refund of ₹28,000, compensation for the loss caused by cancelled classes and for mental agony, and litigation costs - along with her rights to be heard, to be informed, to safety and to seek redressal. A replacement does not cancel the compensation claim; a full and final receipt would.