Ernakulam District Commission Holds Glow Designers For Deficiency In Service Over Delayed Delivery Of Designer Wear For A Baptism Function
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Glow Designers liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices over the delivery of subpar products to the complainant. Brief Facts of the Case The person who filed the complaint contacted the designer, Glow...
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Glow Designers liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices over the delivery of subpar products to the complainant.
Brief Facts of the Case
The person who filed the complaint contacted the designer, Glow Designers, to get designer wear for a baptism function in Kerala. They were convinced by the designer's promises of high-quality dresses that would be perfectly stitched. The complainant paid an initial advance and the remaining amount for the product. However, despite promises to complete the work on time, the designer failed to deliver. On the day of the function, they provided poorly stitched dresses, causing a lot of inconvenience. The complainants had to buy new dresses, incurring additional expenses. The designer refused to take responsibility for the defective dresses and even threatened the complainants when they asked for a refund. The complainant stated that they were also accused of theft by the designer, which was later proved false after examining the CCTV footage. The present complaint is an original petition seeking a refund of the Rs. 19,200 advances with 18% interest, Rs. 1,00,000 compensation for mental agony and expenses, and Rs. 25,000 for proceedings costs.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The designer argued that they delivered the agreed-upon designs, and the Complainant received and approved the stitched dress at the designer's store. They mentioned that the full payment was not made at that time. A dispute regarding a theft arose, leading both parties to the police station, where a compromise was reached, according to the designer. It was further claimed that the complainants agreed to pay Rs. 14,000 and return a shawl worth Rs. 4,000 that they had stolen. The designer refuted the complainants' claim of being unable to use the dress for the baptism and purchasing a new dress from Lulu Mall, stating that these issues were tactics to avoid paying the balance amount agreed upon at the police station.
Observations by the Commission
The commission noted that the main concern in the complaint revolves around the quality of the dress received. The complainants supported their claim of deficient service with bills showing the amount paid and WhatsApp conversations, where the designer assured quality. The commission referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995), stating that consumers are entitled to receive the quality they pay for. Additionally, the commission cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das (1994), emphasizing that consumers deserve the quantity and quality they paid for, as consumers are at the core of business and industrial activities and need protection. The commission also highlighted that the alleged compromise at the police station does not override the original contract between the parties, and the designer still has the primary obligation to provide the promised designer wear, and failing to do so has resulted in a deficiency in service.
The commission directed the designer to refund the Rs. 19,200 that the complainants paid as an advance for stitching the dress materials, along with a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the complainants for the mental agony, expenses, and inconvenience caused. The designer shall also pay the complainant Rs.10, 000 towards the cost of the proceedings.