Hyderabad: Home Centre asked to pay Rs 15,000 for selling defective furniture

Hyderabad: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I here has directed Home Centre to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 to a complainant for supplying defective furniture. It also directed to pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs to the complainant.

Case details

Goka Sridhar Rao is a resident of Hyderabad. He purchased a four-seater dining table – dark walnut, a dining table chair set of two – dark walnut and a small dining bench by paying an amount of Rs 18,000 to the Home Centre store in Begumpet, Hyderabad.

At the time of finalising the deal, the sales executive informed Sridhar that the product had one-year warranty and in case of any issues the team would certainly forward and resolve the issues immediately. Believing the assurances made by the sales executive of the opposite party, Sridhar purchased the product. The opposite party delivered the product in August 2022.

Home Centre supplies defective furniture to Sridhar

While installing the product, it was observed by Sridhar that the opposite party supplied defective pieces and the same was immediately brought to the notice of the technician who attended the installation.

On raising a complaint by the technician, the defective leg of the main table was replaced. However, in December 2022, Sridhar’s spouse almost fell from the chair due to the defective product.

Sridhar’s wife survived the injuries because she had taken support from the main table. On checking the table, it was found that another chair on the dining table was also defective. Therefore, the complainant stopped using the unit and kept the product aside.

Sridhar made several visits to the Home Centre and lodged complaints through toll-free numbers. Thereafter, the technician of the opposite party visited Sridhar’s house and found that all the units were loosely fitted. Hence, the chairs, bench and the main table were refitted.

Home Centre smartly closed all complaints

In spite of making all possible efforts, the technician noticed one chair was still loosely fitted and the chair was dismantled and kept aside.

The complainant raised complaints on the quality issues and the opposite party issued complaint ticket numbers. Without resolving the issues, the opposite party smartly closed all the complaints saying ‘complaints had been closed as the issues were resolved’.

On March 6, 2023, Sridhar once again raised a complaint on the toll-free number and the opposite party agent assured that they would bring possible resolution to the grievance of the complainant within two to three working days. Two technicians visited Sridhar’s house and rechecked the unit and stated that there was no physical damage to the product. Vexed with the actions of the opposite party, Sridhar sent legal notice to the Home Centre, but the same was returned as the opposite party refused to receive the same.

The negligent act of the opposite party put Sridhar through mental agony. Hence, the complainant, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, filed the present complaint and requested the commission to grant the reliefs as stated supra. Upon receipt of notice from the commission, the opposite party appeared through their counsel and contested the matter by filing a written version.

Home Centre denied allegations by Sridhar

The opposite party contended that the commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint as it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that ‘homecentre’ is a brand owned by the opposite party and the product is purchased from a particular homecentre store owned by the opposite party.

Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the homecentre brand has not supplied the item products from their stores that are defective and has not provided any services. After hearing arguments from both parties, in the present case, the court noted that except for bald averments that no issues were found in the product, the opposite party did not submit evidence to rebut the images of the damaged chair submitted by the complainant.

Thus, from the documentary evidence submitted by Sridhar was proved that the opposite party was deficient in rendering proper service during the warranty period. Denial of service and closing the grievances raised by the complainant without resolving the same when the product was under warranty period amounted to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

Therefore, the court directed Home Centre to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 and costs of Rs 5,000 will meet the ends of justice to Sridhar.