Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/300/2022

M. Pandaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Home Interior Designs E-commerce - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. P. Murugesan

16 Mar 2023

ORDER

                                                Date of Complaint Filed : 29.07.2022

                                                Date of Reservation      : 06.03.2023

                                               Date of Order               : 16.03.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,          : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 300/2022

THURSDAY, THE 16^th DAY OF MARCH 2023

M.Pandaram IRS aged 55 years,

S/o. Madasamy,

No.127, Vasantha Street,

Golden George Nagar,

Mugappair East,

Chennai – 600 107.                                                                                                                          ... Complainant                

..Vs..

Home Interior Designs E Commerce Private Limited,

(Livspace)

Represented by its director,

Mr.Saurabh Jain,

Ruby Building,

OldNo.129 & 130, New No.149 & 151,

TTK Road, Alwarpet,

Chennai 600 018.                                                                                                                                 ...  Opposite Party

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. P. Murugesan

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : Exparte

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to refund the cost of the goods amount of Rs.7,98,300/- collected from the Complainant for the supply and installation product of Modular Kitchen for House in receipt No.211219000220 Rs.30,000/- on 19.12.2021, ReceiptNo.220115000563 Rs.204,000/- on 15.01.2022, Recipt No.220125000077 Rs.100,000/- on 25.01.2022, Receipt No.220125000346 Rs.600/- on 25.01.2022, receipt No.220125000079 Rs.41,000/- on 25.01.2022, receipt No.220224000166 Rs.3,92,700/- on 24.02.2022 receipt No.220305000316 Rs.30,000/- on 15.03.2022 and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as punitive damages for adopting unfair trade practice and for cheating the Complainant along with cost of Rs.30,000/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant had placed an order of installing a Modular kitchen to his residence with the Opposite Party and had paid a sum of Rs.7,98,300/-. Though he had sought for a bigger hop as they were using 78 cms hop, the Opposite Party during installation had brought a smaller size of hop of 60 cms and the same was objected explaining their requirement of hop discussed at every stage till installation, thereafter accepted their request and charged extra amount of Rs.30,000/. After installation the kitchen was handed over on 09.04.2022 and on 14.04.2022 leakage of water from the sink was notice and immediately had a Mail on 15.04.2022 complaining about the quality of sink and sought for replacement apart from other grievances. In response to the mail, a plumber had attended the sink issue and informed that the leakage of water would not happen again, but the very next day the water started leaking and the sink itself appeared to be wet and water flowing underneath the sink making the area under the sink and the wall also found wet posing threat to the safety of the building, which was informed to the Opposite Party by Mail dated 17.04.2022. It was informed to the Opposite Party about the water leakage from the sink by mail dated 23.04.2022 and on 25.04.2022 a plumber was deputed to attend the water leakage issue who did not heard about the issues faced by them of the poor quality of the sink, instead he had done some paste work around the sink an don 25.04.2022 the Opposite Party had closed the complaint as redressed. As the water leakage problem persist in spite of the fault attended twice, a mail dated 28.04.2022 was sent to the Opposite party, as no response, he had lodged a complaint through customer care, which was of no use and had made another complaint on 05.05.2022, which went in vain. Hence on 09.05.2022 a mail was sent to the Opposite Party left wit no response. Again on 24.05.2022 a mail was sent to the Opposite Party, only the said mail was responded by reply mail dated 24.05.2022 but no action was taken to redress the issue. And again another mail dated 09.07.2022 was sent to the Opposite Party and requested them to rectify the defect of leaking sink, left with no response. The negligent act of the Opposite party caused irreparable mental stress, financial loss, health hazard and loss of professional practice, for which the Opposite Party is liable to compensate. Hence the Complaint.

3.The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-11. The Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice and remained absent. Hence the Opposite Party was set exparte on 07.12.2022.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

The contentions of the Complainant are that he had placed an order of installing a Modular kitchen to his residence with the Opposite Party and had paid a sum of Rs.7,98,300/-. Though he had sought for a bigger hop as they were using 78 cms hop, the Opposite Party during installation had brought a smaller size of hop of 60 cms and the same was objected explaining their requirement of hop discussed at every stage till installation, thereafter accepted their request and charged extra amount of Rs.30,000/. After installation the kitchen was handed over on 09.04.2022 and on 14.04.2022 leakage of water from the sink was notice and immediately had sent a Mail on 15.04.2022 complaining about the quality of sink and sought for replacement apart from other grievances. In response to the mail, a plumber had attended the sink issue and informed that the leakage of water would not happen again, but the very next day the water started leaking and the sink itself appeared to be wet and water flowing underneath the sink making the area under the sink and the wall also found wet posing threat to the safety of the building, which was informed to the Opposite Party by Mail dated 17.04.2022. It was informed to the Opposite Party about the water leakage from the sink by mail dated 23.04.2022 and on 25.04.2022 a plumber was deputed to attend the water leakage issue who did not heard about the issues faced by them of the poor quality of the sink, instead he had done some paste work around the sink and on 25.04.2022 the Opposite Party had closed the complaint as redressed. As the water leakage problem persist in spite of the fault attended twice, a mail dated 28.04.2022 was sent to the Opposite party, as no response, he had lodged a complaint through customer care, which was of no use and had made another complaint on 05.05.2022, which went in vain. Hence on 09.05.2022 a mail was sent to the Opposite Party left with no response. Again on 24.05.2022 a mail was sent to the Opposite Party, only the said mail was responded by reply mail dated 24.05.2022 but no action was taken to redress the issue. And again another mail dated 09.07.2022 was sent to the Opposite Party and requested them to rectify the defect of leaking sink, left with no response. The negligent act of the Opposite party caused irreparable mental stress, financial loss, health hazard and loss of professional practice, for which the Opposite Party is liable to compensate.

On discussions made above and on perusal of complaint and the exhibits  marked in support of the complaint, it is clear that Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 evidences the payments of Rs.7,96,600/- made towards Modular Kitchen work entrusted to the Opposite Party. By Ex.A-6 Mail dated 15.04.2022 sent to the Opposite Party, apart from other grievances, the Complainant had reported about the quality of the sink and metal pasting around the sink that came out leaving scope for leakage of water through the sink, a plumber attended the issue and had informed the issue was resolved and the same would not happen. It is evident from Ex.A-7 reply mail dated 23.04.2022 and 24.04.2022, it was informed that their plumbing team is scheduled and would contact the Complainant before reaching the site. From Ex.A-8 Mail dated 28.04.2022, it is clear that twice the Opposite Party’s service team had attended the leakage of water in the sink, but the defect was not rectified by the Opposite Party which caused the Complainant to send Ex.A-8, as there was no response, the Complainant had sent a mail dated 30.04.2022, Ex.A-9 stating that the complaint was not attended and rectified, still hoping to get the defect rectified and issue would be resolved by the Opposite Party. Photograph of the Sink is produced and marked as Ex.A-10. Except the above said exhibits, the Complainant had not produced proofs to show the complaint alleged to have been sent through mail dated 17.04.2022 as well as complaints lodged on 05.05.2022, 09.05.2022 and 09.07.2022. it is to be noted that for the Mail dated 15.04.2022 sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party, as admitted by the Complainant the fault in the sink was attended by a plumber, as leakage issue continued, had reported the same to the Opposite party on 17.04.2022. Further as per the commitment made under Ex.A-7 reply mail dated 24.04.2022 sent by the Opposite Party, the issue of water leakage in the sink was found to be attended as admitted by the Complainant by Mail dated 28.04.2022, Ex.A-8. Hence the fault was attended by the Opposite Party twice to rectify the water leakage in the sink, but from Exs.A-8 and 9 mails dated 28.04.2022 and 30.04.2022 it is clear that the water leakage from the sink persisted, to which mails the Opposite Party had failed to respond nor attended the fault and had failed to rectify the defects persisted in the sink, which clearly proves the lethargic and negligent act of the Opposite Party in rectifying the water leakage issue in the sink. Therefore we are of the considered view that the Opposite party had committed deficiency of service and had caused mental agony to the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos. 2 and 3 :-

Though Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant, the relief of refunding the entire cost of Rs.7,98,300/- paid towards Modular Kitchen cannot be ordered, as the issue raised is purely with regard to water leakage issue in the sink, for which the Complainant had not produced any authenticated proof to establish about the quality of the sink, though pleaded sink installed is of poor quality.  Further, as decided that the Opposite Party had failed to rectify the water leakage issue in the sink and thereby had committed deficiency of service, the Opposite Party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony along with cost of Rs.5000/-, to the Complainant. Hence the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.   

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is  directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks  from the date of receipt of this order.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 16^th March 2023.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	19.12.2021	Transaction Receipt No.211219000220
Ex.A2	15.01.2022	Transaction Receipt No.220115000563
Ex.A3	25.01.2022	Transaction Receipt No.220125000077 Transaction Receipt No.220125000079 Transaction Receipt No.220125000346
Ex.A4	24.02.2022	Transaction Receipt No.220224000166
Ex.A5	05.03.2022	Transaction Receipt No.220305000316
Ex.A6	15.04.2022	1st complaint send by the complainant to the Opposite Party by email
Ex.A7	24.04.2022	Reply of the Opposite Party
Ex.A8	28.04.2022	2nd complaint sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party by email
Ex.A9	30.04.2022	3rd complaint sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party by email
Ex.A10	-	Copy of photo
Ex.A11	24.02.2022	Invoice H107-0222-010329

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT