DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2023
Filed on: 12/11/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C. C. No. 471/2018
COMPLAINANT
Shaji Thomas, S/o. Thomas, Pallithekkethil House, Thevarmadom Road, Vennala P.O., Cochin-682028, Ernakulam District
(Rep. by Adv. George Varghese P., George Varghese Associates, Tatapuram Sukumaran Road, Kochi – 18)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Sree Venkateswara Agencies, M.G. Road, Ernakulam-682335, Represented by its Proprietor Rajaram.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint is filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant ordered a Woven gold bathtub with hot water capabilities and all necessary accessories from the opposite party on 08-09-2017, via his architect, Mr. Martin Thomas. A payment of Rs.1,80,000/- was made on 07-11-2017 via cheque No: 00110 of Kotak Bank. The promised delivery date was 25-11-2017.
Despite several reminders, the bathtub was delivered six months later. Upon demonstration, it was discovered that the bathtub did not have the hot water provision as mentioned in the quotation. The construction of the complainant's house was completed on 19-05-2018, but the bathroom attached to the master bedroom remained unfurnished due to the incorrect bathtub.
The opposite party did not heed the complainant's repeated requests to replace the bathtub with the correct specification. Due to this delay and deficiency in service, the complainant has faced monetary loss, inconvenience, and mental distress.
The complainant is now seeking a refund of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest from 07-11-2017 until the payment is made, and an additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the troubles faced.
The complainant demands the following from the opposite party: Refund of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest starting from 7-11-2017, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the troubles faced, and payment for the cost of filing the complaint.
2). Notice
The Commission issued a notice to the opposite party, and this notice was duly served. Subsequently, the opposite party responded by providing their version.
3)THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The opposite party refutes the complainant's claims and believes that the complaint is baseless, misconstrued, and should be dismissed with costs. The complainant has misrepresented facts before the commission. While the opposite party confirms the complainant's quotation for a woven gold bathtub and the receipt of Rs.1,80,000/-, they deny any delay in delivery or issues with the bathtub's functionality.
The bathtub was delivered in accordance with the complainant's requirements. The complainant knew all the specifics and operations of the bathtub when purchasing. The bills produced by the complainant indicate that the bathtub and the heater are separate units, with the heater intended for installation after setting up the bathtub. The complainant tampered with the bathtub package without their knowledge or consent, and by the time their technicians arrived, the heater was missing. However, they attempted to resolve the issue by revisiting the complainant's residence.
Their technicians made multiple attempts to install the heater, but the complainant was often absent from his residence, even going abroad, making it impossible to complete the installation. The opposite party denies several other claims made by the complainant, asserting that they provided the product as promised without any delay or defects. The complaint, according to the opposite party, seems to be an attempt by the complainant to unfairly exploit the situation.
The opposite party conclude that the complainant has suffered no losses or inconveniences as alleged and is not entitled to any compensation. They believe the complaint lacks a proper basis, and the reliefs sought are not justifiable.
4) Evidence
The complainant had produced proof affidavit and 3 documents that were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-3.
Exhibit A1: Photocopy of the quotation dated 08-09-2017 issued by the Opposite party.
Exhibit A2: Photocopy of the receipt of Rs. 1,80,000/- dated 7/11/2017 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Exhibit A3: Photocopy of the occupancy Certificate dated 19/5/2018 of the residential building of the complainant issued by the Kochi Municipal Corporation.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced a Copy of the receipt of Rs.1,80,000/- dated 7/11/2017 issued by the opposite party to the complainant (Exhibit A2). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
The complainant has approached the Commission, seeking a directive for the opposite party to either refund the amount or provide the specified bathtub as per the original agreement.
The learned counsel for the Complainant submitted that the complainant, identified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, placed an order for a Woven gold bathtub with hot water provision and necessary accessories through their architect on 08-09-2017. They paid Rs. 1,80,000/- as the price for the bathtub, as per the quotation provided by the opposite party. This payment was made by Cheque No:00110 of Kotak Bank on 07-11-2017. Exhibit A1 document in the proof affidavit filed by the complainant is a true photocopy of the said quotation.
The opposite party promised to deliver the bathtub by 25-11-2017 but failed to do so, delivering it after a delay of six months. Even after delivery, the bathtub did not function as promised, particularly because it lacked the provision to operate with hot water. The technician could not successfully demonstrate its functionality, rendering it useless to the complainant.
The bathtub delivered by the opposite party did not match the specifications outlined in the complainant's original quotation. The complainant completed construction of their house, except for the bathroom, on 19-05-2018, and they repeatedly requested the opposite party to provide the correct bathtub without causing further delays. A true photocopy of the occupancy certificate is marked as Exhibit A3 document in the proof affidavit filed by the complainant.
The opposite party received the full payment of Rs. 1,80,000/- on 07-11-2017 but did not supply the bathtub as per the quotation. The bathtub supplied was defective, and the opposite party failed to replace it or demonstrate its proper functioning. A true photocopy of the receipt of Rs.1,80,000/- dated 07-11-2017 issued by the opposite party is marked as Exhibit A2 document in the proof affidavit filed by the complainant.
The deficient service on the part of the opposite party caused financial loss, inconvenience, and mental distress to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is seeking compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- (the paid amount) with interest and an additional Rs. 1,00,000/- for the inconvenience and mental agony they have suffered.
Upon thorough review of the evidence provided by both sides, the Commission determines that the complainant qualifies as a consumer seeking remedy for an alleged shortfall in services.
- Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice (Point ii): The complainant's argument presents substantial evidence of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the opposite party. The complainant ordered a specific bathtub with hot water provision and accessories, as per a quotation provided by the opposite party (Exhibit A1). The opposite party failed to deliver the bathtub on the promised date, and upon delivery, it lacked the promised hot water provision and did not match the specified quotation. These actions constitute a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
- Entitlement to Relief (Point iii): The complainant is entitled to relief based on the established deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices by the opposite party. The complainant has suffered monetary loss, inconvenience, and mental distress due to these actions, justifying their claim for compensation and a refund. The evidence provided, including Exhibit A2 (receipt) and Exhibit A3 (occupancy certificate), supports the complainant's claims.
- In view of the deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices demonstrated by the opposite party, and to compensate the complainant for the costs incurred in filing this complaint, the opposite party is liable to bear the costs of the proceedings.
- The complainant's case is supported by clear and credible evidence, including receipts and certificates, which validate their claims of deficient service and unfair trade practices by the opposite party.
- The opposite party's defense does not adequately counter the complainant's evidence. Their assertion that the complainant tampered with the bathtub package and their subsequent attempts to resolve the issue appear unsubstantiated.
- In the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta AIR 1994 SC 787, the Honourable Supreme Court affirmed that the Commission possesses the authority under the Act to grant compensation for not only service deficiencies but also for the distress and suffering experienced by a consumer. Furthermore, it is within the Commission's purview to set guidelines concerning deficiency in service rendered by providers.
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.
We find the issue Nos. (i) to (iv) are also found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practices that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss... etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Party Shall Refund Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant, which was paid for the bathtub.
- The Opposite Party Shall Pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience and mental agony caused due to their unfair trade practices and deficiency in service.
- The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs.10,000/-towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Party be liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @9.5% from 07-11-2017 with interest from 07/11/2017 till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 26th day of October, 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
r
Appendix
Complainant’s evidence
Exhibit A1: Photocopy of the quotation dated 08-09-2017 issued by the Opposite party.
Exhibit A2: Photocopy of the receipt of Rs. 1,80,000/- dated 7/11/2017 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Exhibit A3: Photocopy of the occupancy Certificate dated 19/5/2018 of the residential building of the complainant issued by the Kochi Municipal Corporation.
Opposite party’s evidence
Nil
kp/
Despatch date:
By hand:
by post:
C.C. No. 471/2018
Order date: 26/10/2023
