DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 20^th  day of November   2024

  Filed on: 30.10.2023

PRESENT

Shri. D.B.Binu                                                                                           President

Shri. V.Ramachandran                                                                                    Member

Smt. Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                               Member     

C.C.No. 785 of 2023

COMPLAINANT

Achyut K. Padmaraj, S/o R. Padmaraj, 42/615 A,  Opposite V Lane, Vennala High School Road, Vennala, Kochi 682 028

(Rep. by Adv. Deepak Mohan, 1^st Floor, Moojappilly Building, Providence Road, Ernakulam-18)

Vs

OPPOSITE PARTY

M/s. Home Centre, Town Centre, Building No. 3, West Wing, Off Old Airport Road, Yemlur P.O, Bengalure- 560 037, Represented by its Manager(Commercial).

(Rep. by Adv. Goutham Krishna)

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1)       A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant purchased two Lewis 4-Door Wardrobes with mirrors and drawers (brown) for Rs. 37,397.40/- from the opposite party's online application on 07.06.2023. The products were delivered on 15.06.2023 and assembled by the opposite party’s technicians.

During assembly, a part of one drawer was not fixed properly, which caused it to bend. The complainant later found the missing part in the discarded carton and reported the issue to the opposite party. The second wardrobe had a similar issue with its drawer bending, and both wardrobes exhibited signs of being made from poor-quality materials. Additionally, fungus developed on the wardrobes, rendering them unsuitable for use.

             The complainant raised these concerns with the opposite party’s customer care team through phone and an inspection was conducted. However, the opposite party refused to provide any service or resolution, leaving the complainant with defective products occupying valuable space.

The complainant issued a legal notice on 18.09.2023, which was received by the opposite party on 22.09.2023, demanding either a replacement of the defective wardrobes or a full refund of Rs. 37,397.40/-, along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The opposite party failed to respond to the notice, forcing the complainant to seek legal redress.

Reliefs Sought:

Replace the defective wardrobes with quality products or refund                 Rs. 37,397.40/- with 12% interest from 07.06.2023 until payment. Award Rs. 50,000/- as punitive damages for the inconvenience caused. Award                Rs. 15,000/- as costs of the proceedings.

2. NOTICE:

The Commission issued a notice to the opposite party on 09.11.2023, which was duly received by the opposite party on 24.11.2023. However, the opposite party failed to file their version within the statutory period. As a result, they were set ex-parte by the Commission.

3. Evidence:

The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with four documents. The documents in the complaint are marked as Exhibits A1 to A4.

1. Exhibit A1: Copy of Tax Invoice No. 4170003744 dated 14.06.2023, issued by Landmark India Online Pvt Ltd in favour of the complainant, as proof of purchase.
2. Exhibit A2: Copy of the legal notice dated 18.09.2023, issued by the complainant to the opposite party regarding the defective wardrobes.
3. Exhibit A3: Copy of the postal receipt No. RL753169002IN dated 19.09.2023, evidencing the dispatch of the legal notice to the opposite party.
4. Exhibit A4: Screenshot of the postal tracking report.

4. Points for Consideration:

i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties?

iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?

5. ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE COMPLAINANT

The complainant, a resident of Ernakulam, placed orders for two Lewis 4-door wardrobes with mirrors and drawers through an online purchase from the opposite party, paying Rs. 37,397.40/- as per Exhibit A1 (Order ID No. 1147027436 dated 07.06.2023).

The products were delivered on 15.06.2023 and were assembled by the opposite party’s technicians. During the assembly, a drawer was not fixed completely due to a missing part, which was later found in the discarded carton. A complaint was registered with the Home Centre to address the issue, as the drawer had bent due to improper assembly. The second wardrobe had a similar issue with a bent drawer. Both wardrobes were found to be made of substandard materials, and fungus developed extensively both inside and outside the wardrobes. These defects rendered the wardrobes unusable. The issues were raised with the opposite party’s customer care team by phone, but despite conducting an inspection, the opposite party flatly refused to service the products.

On 18.09.2023, the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party, as evidenced by Exhibit A2, demanding either a replacement of the defective wardrobes or a full refund of Rs. 37,397.40/-, along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The notice was sent via registered post, as evidenced by (Postal Receipt No. RL753169002IN dated 19.09.2023), and was received by the opposite party on 22.09.2023, as confirmed by Exhibit A3 (Postal Tracking Report).

The opposite party failed to respond to the notice and remained absent during the proceedings, leading to an ex-parte order. They later filed a version on 24.06.2024, beyond the statutory period, but again remained absent when the complainant provided evidence through a proof affidavit. The failure to respond to Exhibit A2 and their absence in proceedings indicates a clear deficiency in service by the opposite party.

We have also noticed that a Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party but did not file their version. Hence the opposite party set ex-parte. The complainant had produced 4 documents marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-4.  All in support of his case. However, the opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission or set aside the ex-prate order passed against it. It was further stated that this illegal, arbitrary and unjustified act of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them.  Here, the case of the complainants stands unchallenged by the opposite party.  We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant.   The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its Order dated 09/10/2017 in RP No. 579/2017 (2017(4) C.P.R 590)  also held a similar stance. 

We have meticulously considered the detailed submissions made by the complainant and thoroughly reviewed the entire record of evidence, including the argument notes presented.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which allows a consumer to file a complaint for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The complainant qualifies as a "consumer" under Section 2(7) of the Act, having purchased wardrobes from the opposite party for consideration.

As evidence of the transaction, the complainant has submitted Exhibit A1, a copy of Tax Invoice No. 4170003744 dated 14.06.2023, issued by Landmark India Online Pvt Ltd in favour of the complainant. This document serves as proof of purchase and establishes the complainant’s standing to file the complaint.

Thus, the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite party?

Evidence provided by the complainant, including Exhibit A1 to A4, establishes substandard quality in the wardrobes, refusal of service by the opposite party, and their failure to respond to the complainant’s legal notice. This constitutes a deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

iii) Deficiency in Service and Negligence:

The complainant’s evidence, including the invoice (Exhibit A1), legal notice (Exhibit A2), postal receipt (Exhibit A3), and tracking confirmation (Exhibit A4), confirms the opposite party’s failure to deliver goods of acceptable quality. The opposite party’s refusal to repair or replace the defective wardrobes despite complaints and inspection demonstrates negligence and deficiency in service.

Unfair Trade Practice:

Selling wardrobes made of substandard material and refusing to address defects constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

iv) Whether the complainant is entitled to relief?

Based on the deficiency in service and mental agony caused, the complainant is entitled to relief, including a refund and compensation. The complainant is also entitled to the costs of filing and pursuing the case.

6. Liability of the Opposite Parties:

The opposite party’s absence in proceedings and failure to file a response within the statutory period reinforce their liability.

The opposite party failed to provide products of acceptable quality as per Sections 2(10) and 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The complainant has suffered financial loss, mental agony, and inconvenience, which must be compensated adequately.

Consumer disputes are an inherent part of the modern marketplace, and with the rapid growth of e-commerce, their frequency has only increased. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a pivotal piece of social welfare legislation in India, aims to safeguard the rights and interests of consumers. Its primary objective is to ensure timely and effective resolution of disputes while promoting accountability among businesses.

The Act emphasizes key consumer rights, such as the right to be protected from deceptive or harmful marketing, the right to accurate and transparent information about the quality, quantity, and effectiveness of goods and services, the right to be heard and have grievances addressed, and the right to redressal against unfair trade practices. Additionally, it underscores the importance of consumer education, empowering individuals to make informed choices and assert their rights in the marketplace.

This case exemplifies the need for robust consumer protections and the role of the Act in ensuring fairness and justice in an increasingly dynamic commercial environment.

It is evident from the facts of this case that the complainant, a diligent consumer, placed trust in the opposite party by purchasing wardrobes with the expectation of quality and durability. However, the subsequent delivery of defective products, coupled with the refusal to address the issues despite multiple complaints, not only caused financial loss but also significant mental anguish. The complainant's efforts to seek resolution through a legal notice were met with silence, leaving them with no choice but to approach this Commission for justice. This case highlights the critical importance of businesses honouring their commitments and the need for accountability in consumer transactions to maintain trust in the marketplace.

We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainants' favour due to the significant service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the Opposite Party.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence, the prayer is allowed as follows:

1. The opposite party shall refund ₹37,397.40/- (Rupees Thirty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety-Seven and Forty Paise Only) to the complainant, as evidenced by Exhibit A1.
2. The opposite party shall pay ₹20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) as compensation for the complainant’s mental agony, financial loss, physical hardship, and suffering caused by the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
3. The opposite party shall pay ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant towards the cost of the proceedings.

The opposite party is liable to comply with the above orders within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failure to make payments under Points I and II within the stipulated time will attract an interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (30.10.2023) until the complete realization of the amount.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20^th  day of November   2024                                                                                             

Sd/-

D.B. Binu, President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran,  Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N, Member

Forwarded/By Order,

                                                                               Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence

1. Exhibit A1: Copy of Tax Invoice No. 4170003744 dated 14.06.2023, issued by Landmark India Online Pvt Ltd in favour of the complainant, as proof of purchase.
2. Exhibit A2: Copy of the legal notice dated 18.09.2023, issued by the complainant to the opposite party regarding the defective wardrobes.
3. Exhibit A3: Copy of the postal receipt No. RL753169002IN dated 19.09.2023, evidencing the dispatch of the legal notice to the opposite party.
4. Exhibit A4: Screenshot of the postal tracking report .

OPPOSITE PARTY’S Evidence

     NIL

Date of Despatch

By Hand       ::

By post         ::

AKR/

Order in CC No. 785/2023

Dated :20/11/2024