Delay In Installation Of Lift, Bangalore District Commission Holds John Elevators Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts:

M/s Northface Consultancy Services Private Limited (“Complainant”), was approached by John Elevators Private Limited (“Company”) for providing lift installation services for the Complainant's office building. After the Complainant agreed to the proposal, an advance amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to the Company. The Company assured prompt commencement and completion of the installation within three months. Despite the Complainant paying two installments and entering into an agreement, the Company faced delays due to the global Covid-19 pandemic, leading to a failure to complete the lift work.

Later, the Complainant paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Company, who assured the Complainant that the lift work would start immediately. The Complainant, anticipating the work, arranged scaffolding on a rental basis for two months and urged the Company to proceed. Although the Company promised delivery by 31.08.2022, the lift was not installed. By the end of the year, the Complainant had paid a total of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the Company. The prolonged delay resulted in significant business losses and inconveniences for employees and clients visiting the office due to the absence of the lift. The Complainant, considering this a deficiency in service and a breach of contractual obligations under the agreement, issued a legal notice to the Company demanding a refund. The Company, in response, assured completion within a month through a Memorandum of Understanding, but failed to honor the commitment. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bengaluru, Karnataka (“District Commission”).

The Company failed to appear before the District Commission. Hence, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Company undertook the responsibility to install the lift, received the agreed amount, and entered into a formal agreement with the Complainant. While the Complainant alleged that the Company failed to meet the agreed-upon timeline, there was no assertion on part of the Complainant that the Company did not commence the installation work. WhatsApp messages exchanged between the them indicated that the Company placed orders for materials and initiated the installation work but failed to complete it within the stipulated three months from the agreement date.

Therefore, the District Commission held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the company due to the delay in installing the lift. Consequently, the District Commission directed the Company to complete the installation within two months from the date of the order, and return any balance amount to the Complainant. It held that if the Company failed to comply with the order, the Company would be held liable of refund Rs. 7,00,000/- to the Complainant along with interest. Further, the District Commission directed the Company to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant for deficiency in service and mental agony. It was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.

Click Here To Read/Download Order