Ernakulam District Commission Holds Badriya Exclusive Furniture Liable For Deficiency In Service Over The Non-Delivery Of A Product Bought During An Exhibition
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Banu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Badriya Exclusive Furniture liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Commission elucidated on the lack of an effective customer grievance redressal system in such exhibitions. Brief Facts of...
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Banu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Badriya Exclusive Furniture liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Commission elucidated on the lack of an effective customer grievance redressal system in such exhibitions.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant initiated a purchase agreement with Badriya Exclusive Furniture/ Furniture Company for a wardrobe during an exhibition at Kallor International Stadium, Ernakulam. An initial payment of 500 rupees was made in accordance with the terms specified in the furniture company's order form. Despite compliance with this condition, the wardrobe has not been delivered, constituting a breach of contract by the furniture company. Following financial hardships resulting from unforeseen circumstances, the complainant sought to amend the original order. Correspondence with the opposing party indicated a willingness to accommodate changes upon payment of required fees. Despite repeated attempts to secure delivery, including the submission of sketches via WhatsApp, the ordered furniture was not received. During a subsequent encounter at an exhibition, the complainant proposed exchanging the wardrobe order for a chair. A revised payment agreement was reached, but the promised delivery within two days was not fulfilled, and the chair remains undelivered. Consequently, the complainant has sought redress through the Consumer Commission, seeking compensation for distress and financial losses incurred due to the company's fraudulent conduct.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The complaint has been set ex parte.
Observations by the Commission
The commission observed that the complainant qualifies as a consumer as they placed an order for a wardrobe and made an advance payment to the opposing party. Therefore, the complainant's status as a consumer under the Act is confirmed. The Commission noted that although the complainant did not fulfill the required payment for the product, the company failed to provide evidence of any losses incurred as a result of this non-payment. Furthermore, when the Commission sent a notice, it was returned as refused, and the company did not submit its version to the Commission. The Commission observed a common issue where organizers of exhibitions, trade fairs, and festivals lack an effective customer grievance redressal system. This hampers resolution for customers facing issues with purchased products or services at such events, as resolution often requires revisiting the event site with a valid entry pass. Considering these circumstances, the Commission concluded that the company did not suffer any financial losses due to the complainant's order.
The commission directed the company to refund the advance payment of Rs. 500 along with Rs. 5,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.
Case Title: Jolly PF Vs. Badriya Exclusive Furniture
Case Number: C.C. NO 442/2020