Watertec India Private Limited - Watertec Taps

Recommendation: Not Upheld | Medium: Suo Motu - NAMS (TAMS)

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The advertiser was offered an option to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claim in the advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the claim with supporting data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail and replied seeking for an extension of two weeks to submit their response. However, as a special gesture, the advertiser was granted an extension of additional three business days to respond. The advertiser in their response stated that the claim refers to a controlled endurance test conducted on Watertec taps under laboratory conditions, where taps are subjected to repeated open-close rotational cycles to evaluate their ability to function without mechanical failure over prolonged usage. As claim support data, the advertiser provided the following documents – (1) Laboratory test reports, (2) Endurance test video evidence, (3) Testing facility documentation. The advertiser’s response with the claim support data was referred to an independent technical expert of ASCI for their opinion. The expert opinion was then shared with the advertiser to allow them to make additional submissions. In response, the advertiser submitted final and in-process inspection reports for the SQ Series bib taps, which include endurance testing under repeated turn-cycle conditions. The reports also referenced additional past inspection records organized by batch numbers showing the product’s performance in these tests. The advertiser then held a zoom meeting with the ASCI Secretariat and the technical expert to discuss their submissions. The additional submissions made by the advertiser were shared with the technical expert for final opinion. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the TV advertisement, considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert’s final opinion presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the advertiser submitted laboratory test reports, inspection reports, photographic and videographic evidence, and internal quality documentation, in support of the claim. The CCC observed that the advertiser’s initial submissions showed that the taps undergo controlled endurance testing under laboratory conditions, where each tap is subjected to repeated rotational cycles under pressurized water flow to assess operational durability. The advertiser explained that this testing is conducted for every batch manufactured. The internal test reports submitted in the first instance indicated testing to 2 lakh cycles for single batches, but did not address statistical consistency across multiple batches. The advertiser provided additional inspection reports, including final and in-process reports as well as data from multiple batches tested to failure. These reports showed that the taps successfully withstood cycles well beyond the 2 lakh mark. Based on the evidence, testing methodology, and additional batch data provided, the CCC concluded that the claim “Tested for 2 Lakh + Turn Cycles”, was substantiated. The claim is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.