In a landmark consumer‑rights verdict, a 75‑year‑old resident of Banashankari, Bengaluru, has won a court battle against a faulty mosquito vaporiser, forcing the manufacturer and retailer to pay compensation for a defective product that failed to perform as advertised.
Background and Context
India’s tropical climate makes mosquito‑borne illnesses a perennial public health concern. Bengaluru, with its humid monsoon season, sees a surge in dengue, chikungunya and malaria cases every year. In response, manufacturers have flooded the market with electric vaporisers promising to eliminate mosquitoes without chemicals. Yet, consumer complaints about sub‑standard devices have risen sharply, with the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC) receiving over 12,000 complaints on electronic appliances in 2024 alone.
Against this backdrop, the case of Sangameswaran S., a 75‑year‑old senior citizen, highlights a growing trend: consumers demanding accountability from big brands for products that do not meet safety and performance standards. The verdict underscores the importance of rigorous quality checks and transparent marketing claims.
Key Developments
On 27 November 2024, Sangameswaran purchased a Good Night Gold Flash Liquid Vaporiser from Smart Bazaar, a Reliance Retail outlet in Banashankari 3rd Stage. The device, priced at Rs 215, was manufactured by Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. (GCPL) in October 2024. The product’s packaging advertised a fully automatic mode that would kill mosquitoes, switch from normal to flash mode after four hours, and revert automatically without manual intervention.
After using the vaporiser continuously for four days as per the instructions, Sangameswaran reported that the machine neither killed mosquitoes nor switched between modes. He filed a consumer complaint on 30 December 2024, alleging that the device was an outdated, discontinued model left on shelves without replacement and that no proper quality checks were performed before sale.
The CDRC issued notices to both Reliance Retail and GCPL. Reliance did not appear in court and was held ex parte. GCPL initially missed its deadline but later paid a Rs 500 cost and denied any deficiency, claiming the device was used under conditions not specified by the manufacturer. However, after reviewing affidavits, purchase receipts, product images, and the legal notice, the bench found that the vaporiser failed to perform its primary function as advertised.
On 17 November 2025, the bench, comprising President Shivaram K, members Chandrashekar S Noola and Rekha Sayannavar, ordered both parties to jointly and severally pay Rs 5,000 as compensation, plus 9% interest from the date of the order until realisation. The decision was based on the following findings:
- The device did not switch from normal to flash mode after four hours, violating the advertised feature.
- No visible expiry date or quality certification was present on the packaging.
- GCPL’s quality control processes failed to detect the defect before the product reached the retail shelf.
- Reliance Retail’s failure to ensure product compliance contributed to consumer harm.
“Such products are intended to protect users from mosquitoes without any harmful side effects. In the present case, a defective product was manufactured and sold. Since there is a manufacturing defect in the product, the opposite party is liable to pay compensation,” the bench stated.
Impact Analysis
For consumers, the verdict sends a clear message: manufacturers and retailers must uphold the promises made on packaging and advertising. The ruling also reinforces the role of the CDRC in safeguarding consumer interests, especially for vulnerable groups such as senior citizens who may be more susceptible to mosquito‑borne diseases.
Key takeaways for everyday shoppers include:
- Check for expiry dates and quality seals before purchase.
- Verify that the product’s advertised features match the user manual.
- Report any discrepancies to the CDRC within 60 days of purchase.
- Seek a refund or replacement if the product fails to perform as promised.
For retailers, the case underscores the importance of rigorous in‑store quality checks and staff training on product specifications. Failure to do so can result in legal liability and reputational damage.
Expert Insights and Practical Tips
Dr. Anil Kumar, a consumer rights lawyer based in Bengaluru, notes that “the court’s decision is a precedent for future cases involving electronic appliances. It clarifies that manufacturers cannot rely on vague terms like ‘automatic’ without providing verifiable evidence of functionality.”
Consumer advocate Meera Nair advises shoppers to:
- Keep the original receipt and packaging for at least 90 days.
- Use a digital camera to capture any defects or missing features.
- Contact the manufacturer’s customer service before filing a complaint; many companies offer a 30‑day return policy.
- Leverage social media platforms to raise awareness; public pressure often accelerates resolution.
From a health perspective, the Karnataka State Health Department recommends that households use a combination of mosquito control methods—screening windows, eliminating standing water, and using certified vaporisers—to reduce the risk of dengue and chikungunya.
Looking Ahead
The verdict is likely to prompt stricter regulatory scrutiny of electronic pest control devices. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs has announced plans to update the Consumer Protection Act to include mandatory safety certifications for all household appliances sold in India.
Manufacturers are expected to adopt more robust testing protocols, including:
- Independent laboratory verification of automatic mode functionality.
- Clear labeling of product expiry dates and batch numbers.
- Transparent disclosure of any discontinued models still available for sale.
Retail chains may also introduce in‑store quality assurance checkpoints, ensuring that every unit meets the advertised specifications before reaching the consumer. These measures aim to restore consumer confidence and reduce the incidence of defective products in the market.
For consumers, staying informed about product specifications and exercising the right to seek redressal will remain crucial. The CDRC’s swift action in this case sets a benchmark for timely justice and may encourage more consumers to report faulty products.
As Bengaluru continues to grapple with mosquito‑borne health risks, the importance of reliable pest control solutions cannot be overstated. This case serves as a reminder that consumer vigilance, coupled with robust regulatory oversight, is essential to protect public health.
Reach out to us for personalized consultation based on your specific requirements.
