Hyderabad: Royal Oak Furniture asked to pay ₹85,000 for selling defective sofa

Hyderabad: Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I has asked Royal Oak Furniture to refund ₹50,000 to the complainant, along with ₹25,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 litigation costs for selling a defective sofa.

The Commission held the company guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Sofa developed defects within warranty period

According to the complaint, Nasreen Fatima of Nagole purchased a sofa from the retailer on February 12, 2024, for ₹50,000. The product was delivered on February 16, 2024, and initially appeared to be in good condition.

However, within nine months of use, the sofa developed significant defects, including loosened joints, torn fabric, and sagging cushions, severely affecting its utility and comfort.

She approached the company’s customer care on November 19, 2024, but despite repeated follow-ups through calls and chats, no corrective action was taken.

Nasreen subsequently issued a legal notice on December 16, 2024, seeking a resolution. The company did not respond.

Company set Ex Parte

The Commission noted that despite receiving notice, the opposite party neither appeared nor filed a written version within the statutory 45-day period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As a result, the company was set ex parte on April 10, 2025.

During the enquiry, the complainant submitted documentary evidence, including the purchase invoice, warranty details, and photographs of the damaged sofa. The Commission observed that the evidence remained unchallenged due to the company’s non-appearance.

Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

On examining the material on record, including chat conversations between the parties, the Commission found that the company had assured service support but failed to act. It ruled that the inaction amounted to negligence, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice.

While the complainant had sought ₹1 lakh as compensation, the Commission held that the amount was excessive and awarded ₹25,000 instead, stating that compensation must be reasonable and proportionate.

45 days for compliance

In its final order, the Commission directed the company to:

Refund ₹50,000 after collecting the defective sofa from the complainant’s residence at its own expense;

Pay ₹25,000 as compensation for mental agony;

Pay ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.

The company has been given 45 days to comply with the order. Failure to refund the amount within the stipulated period will attract 9% annual interest from the date of complaint until realisation.