Delivery Of Different Sofa, Failure To Refund, Hyderabad District Commission Holds Pepperfry Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Pepperfry liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for delivering a 19-inch sofa instead of the 35-inch sofa ordered by the Complainant and for refusing the return...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Pepperfry liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for delivering a 19-inch sofa instead of the 35-inch sofa ordered by the Complainant and for refusing the return or refund.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant placed an order for a 'Haiden Velvet RHS Sectional Sofa' for Rs. 55,144/- from Pepperfry. The Complainant was under the impression that the sofa had dimensions of 35 inches. However, upon receiving and opening the product, it was found that the sofa delivered was completely different from what was described and displayed online. The delivered sofa had a seating capacity of only 19 inches, with the remaining space taken up by the design. Additionally, the sofa differed in colour, dimensions, quality, and comfort level from what was ordered.
A technician from Pepperfry verified that the delivered sofa differed from the one ordered and raised a complaint regarding the delivery of the wrong product. The Complainant received an email from Pepperfry confirming that the sofa assembly service failed because the wrong item was delivered. Despite acknowledging the mistake, Pepperfry refused to exchange the product or refund the amount paid. Consequently, the Complainant sent a legal notice. Pepperfry did not respond to this legal notice. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad, Telangana (“District Commission”) against Pepperfry,
Pepperfry didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that Pepperfry informed the Complainant that the assembly service could not be completed because the delivered item was incorrect. Pepperfry assured the Complainant that its customer service team would contact her with updates and a resolution, and apologized for the inconvenience caused. Therefore, the District Commission noted that Pepperfry admitted the assembly service failure due to the incorrect item delivery.
The District Commission held that the act of sending a wrong product and subsequently refusing to refund or replace it amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Consequently, the District Commission directed Pepperfry to refund Rs. 55,144/- to the Complainant, who, upon receiving the amount, was required to return the product to Pepperfry. Additionally, the District Commission ordered Pepperfry to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the Complainant and Rs. 15,000/- for litigation costs.
Case Title: Kotti Nagasri vs The Authorized Signatory, Pepperfry Limited
Case Number: C.C. No. 574/2023
Date of Pronouncement: 20.05.2024