Central Delhi District Commission Holds Regalo Kitchens Pvt. Ltd. Liable For Failure To Install Modular Kitchen Timely
The Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Inder Jeet Singh (President), Shahina (Member) and Vyas Muni Rai (Member) held Regalo Kitchens Pvt. Ltd. liable of unfair trade practices for not installing the Modular Kitchen at the complainant’s property as promised and the delay in providing electrical and plumbing drawings and repeatedly changing...
The Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Inder Jeet Singh (President), Shahina (Member) and Vyas Muni Rai (Member) held Regalo Kitchens Pvt. Ltd. liable of unfair trade practices for not installing the Modular Kitchen at the complainant’s property as promised and the delay in providing electrical and plumbing drawings and repeatedly changing the delivery date without consultation with the complainant.
Brief Facts:
Narender Rathi (“Complainant”) alleged that an authorized agent of the Regalo Kitchens Pvt. Ltd. (“Company”) had assured him of a professional and skilled team for the installation of the Modular Kitchen. The complainant agreed to the installation for a total consideration of Rs. 4,35,000 and made several advance payments totaling Rs. 2,17,500 as directed. However, the company failed to provide the promised services, delayed providing electrical and plumbing drawings, and repeatedly changed the delivery date without consulting the complainant.
The complainant also sent a legal notice to the company requesting a refund of the advance payment, but received no response. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Commission (“District Commission”).
The complainant contended that the company engaged in unfair trade practices by making promises they did not fulfill. The complainant argued that despite paying an advance of Rs. 2,17,500, the company did not fulfill their obligations. They failed to provide electrical and plumbing drawings and repeatedly changed the delivery date without consultation. The complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of the project by the company's agents, Mr. Alok and Ms. Chandra Jita, who were responsible for the delay. The complainant felt that the company misled him regarding the production process and payment terms, causing confusion.
The company did not appear to contest the case, and no contentions or defenses on their behalf were presented.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission found that the company's actions constituted unfair trade practices and a deficiency of service, as the complainant's evidence, including his bank statement, supported the fact that the company had indeed received an advance payment. The District Commission noted that there was delay in handling electrical and plumbing drawings, frequent changes in the scheduled delivery date, and a failure to meet their contractual obligations on the part of the company.
Consequently, the District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant and ordered the company to refund the advance payment of Rs. 2,17,500 and awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000 for mental agony and pain in addition to Rs. 5,000 as litigation charges.
Case: Narendra Rathi vs Regalo Kitchens and 2 others
Case No.: CC/80/2022
Advocate for the Complainant: N.A.
Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.