In a landmark consumer‑rights verdict, a 75‑year‑old resident of Bengaluru’s Banashankari 3rd Stage has been awarded Rs 5,000 in mosquito vaporiser compensation after a defective Good Night Gold Flash Liquid Vaporiser failed to perform as advertised. The decision, handed down by the III Additional Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 17 November 2025, holds both the manufacturer, Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, and the retailer, Reliance Retail Ltd, jointly and severally liable for the shortfall.
Background
Mosquito‑borne illnesses such as dengue and chikungunya have surged in Karnataka, with the state reporting over 12,000 cases in 2024 alone. In this climate, consumers increasingly rely on electric vaporisers to safeguard their homes. The Good Night Gold Flash model, launched in October 2024, promised an automatic cycle that switches from normal mode to a 30‑minute flash mode after four hours, supposedly eliminating mosquitoes without manual intervention. However, the complainant, Sangameswaran S, found the device neither killed insects nor switched modes, leading to sleepless nights for him and his family.
Key Developments
The complaint, filed on 30 December 2024, cited the absence of a visible expiry date, the sale of an outdated model, and a lack of quality checks. Notices were issued to Reliance Retail and Godrej. Reliance did not appear at the hearing and was held ex parte, while Godrej initially missed its deadline, later paying a Rs 500 cost and denying any deficiency. The bench, led by President Shivaram K, reviewed affidavits, purchase receipts, product images, and the legal notice. It concluded that the vaporiser failed to perform its primary function as advertised, thereby constituting a manufacturing defect.
- Manufacturer’s claim: Device used under unspecified conditions, compliant with technical standards.
- Retailer’s stance: No evidence of faulty stock, product was in good condition.
- Commission’s ruling: Both parties liable for mosquito vaporiser compensation; Rs 5,000 awarded with 9% interest from order date.
“Such products are intended to protect users from mosquitoes without any harmful side effects,” the bench said. “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.”
Impact Analysis
For Bengaluru’s 12 million residents, the ruling sends a clear message that consumer safety is paramount. The compensation amount, while modest, underscores the principle that manufacturers and retailers must ensure product reliability. Students and young professionals, who often purchase budget‑friendly gadgets, may now scrutinise product specifications more closely. The case also highlights the importance of reading packaging details, such as expiry dates and mode‑switching instructions, before purchase.
Statistically, the average cost of a mosquito‑related illness in India is estimated at ₹ 15,000 per patient, including medical treatment and lost wages. A defective vaporiser that fails to protect a household could indirectly contribute to higher healthcare expenses. By awarding compensation, the commission not only addresses the immediate grievance but also deters future negligence.
Expert Insights
Dr. Anil Kumar, a consumer‑rights lawyer at the Karnataka Consumer Protection Council, said, “This verdict reinforces the duty of care that manufacturers owe to consumers. It also sets a precedent for product liability in the home appliance sector.”
Meanwhile, Ms. Priya Nair, a product safety analyst, advised consumers to:
- Check for a visible expiry or batch number on the packaging.
- Verify that the device’s mode‑switching mechanism is clearly described and test it before use.
- Keep the purchase receipt and warranty card for at least six months.
- Report any malfunction to the retailer within 30 days to trigger a refund or replacement.
For students, especially those studying engineering or consumer science, the case offers a practical lesson in product testing and regulatory compliance. “Incorporating real‑world case studies into curricula can bridge the gap between theory and practice,” noted Professor Ramesh Gupta of the Indian Institute of Technology, Bangalore.
Looking Ahead
The ruling is likely to prompt stricter quality‑control protocols across the consumer electronics industry. Retail chains may implement in‑store testing stations, while manufacturers could adopt more rigorous batch‑testing before shipment. Regulatory bodies may also consider mandating expiry dates on all household appliances to enhance transparency.
For consumers, the verdict serves as a reminder to stay vigilant. “If a product does not perform as advertised, you have the right to seek compensation,” emphasized Ms. Nair. “Document everything—photos, videos, and receipts—so you can present a strong case if needed.”
In the broader context, the case aligns with India’s Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which empowers consumers to claim compensation for defective goods. As the market for smart home devices expands, similar disputes may become more frequent, making consumer awareness and proactive reporting essential.
Reach out to us for personalized consultation based on your specific requirements.
