“Once the opposite parties accepted consideration for a paid repair, a binding obligation arose to complete the service professionally and within a reasonable timeframe. The opposite parties cannot hide behind the ‘rat-bite warranty exclusion’ to justify a careless, incomplete, or faulty paid service execution,” the commission said on June 6, allowing the complaint.
Cult.Sport contested the complaint and argued that the treadmill had suffered rodent damage, which was specifically excluded from warranty coverage. (Image generated using AI)
Rats damaged wires, treadmill stopped working
According to the complaint, Sahil purchased a “Fit Kit Treadmill” through an online order on December 18, 2023, for Rs 24,899. The machine was delivered on December 21, 2023.
The treadmill functioned normally until October 2024, when it stopped working. The consumer contacted the company through email and WhatsApp on October 7, 2024.
A technician visited four days later and reportedly informed him that wires inside the machine had been damaged by rats.
The company subsequently demanded Rs 3,500 for replacing the damaged wires. Sahil paid the amount, expecting the machine to be repaired and restored to normal use.
However, according to the complaint, the replacement process did not solve the problem.
He alleged that some replacement components supplied by the company were missing, while others did not match the original specifications. Later, further issues arose regarding the compatibility and size of the safety key wire, leaving the treadmill unusable despite repeated repair attempts.
Consumer alleged endless follow-ups
The complainant told the commission that despite numerous follow-ups, calls, and assurances from company representatives extending into April 2025, the treadmill was never restored to working condition.
Instead, he alleged, the company demanded another Rs 3,500 for additional repairs without first resolving the initial paid service request. Frustrated by the continued delay, Sahil approached the consumer commission seeking relief.
He also claimed that because the treadmill remained unusable, he had to spend money on alternative fitness arrangements and suffered mental harassment.
Company cited rat damage exclusion
Cult.Sport contested the complaint and argued that the treadmill had suffered rodent damage, which was specifically excluded from warranty coverage.
The company stated that after receiving the complaint in October 2024, it promptly arranged a technician visit, during which severe rat damage to the display wires was detected.
It maintained that the Rs 3,500 charge was for replacement parts required because the damage was outside warranty coverage.
The company further argued that delays occurred due to scheduling issues and the complainant’s location.
It also claimed that during a subsequent inspection in March 2025, even the newly installed replacement wires were found to have been damaged by rats. According to the company, video evidence of the fresh damage was shared with the complainant.
Cult.Sport maintained that it had provided several goodwill inspections free of charge and denied any deficiency in service.
Commission rejects defence
After examining the evidence, the commission held that the dispute was not about whether rat damage was covered under warranty but whether the company had fulfilled its obligation after accepting payment for repairs.
The bench observed that once the company accepted Rs 3,500 for the replacement of the wires, it assumed a responsibility to complete the repair properly and within a reasonable period.
The commission noted that the replacement wires supplied by the company failed to fit into the treadmill’s safety mechanism and that the machine remained non-functional despite payment having been collected.
“The core defect regarding the incorrect parts persisted, resulting in gross deficiency of service,” the commission said.
Relief granted
Allowing the complaint, the commission directed the opposite parties to jointly and severally refund Rs 3,500 collected towards wire replacement charges.
It also ordered them to provide and install appropriate wires that fit the treadmill’s safety mechanism and restore the machine to proper working condition within 45 days.
Apart from this, the commission awarded Rs 5,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.
The order further states that if the treadmill is not restored within the stipulated 45-day period, the companies will be liable to pay an additional Rs 10,000 as a penalty and compensation to the complainant.
Why ruling matters
The ruling reinforces a key consumer protection principle that companies cannot rely solely on warranty exclusions after accepting money for repairs.
Even if the original defect falls outside warranty coverage, service providers remain responsible for carrying out paid repair work competently and within a reasonable timeframe.
The decision is likely to be relevant for consumers increasingly dependent on online purchases and after-sales service support for fitness equipment, electronics, and household appliances.
For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Himachal Pradesh helpline: 1800-180-8087) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
The commission held that the company had fulfilled its obligation after accepting payment for treadmill repairs. (Image generated using AI) 
Cult.Sport contested the complaint and argued that the treadmill had suffered rodent damage, which was specifically excluded from warranty coverage. (Image generated using AI)
Share
