Hyderabad: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, has directed Lenskart to pay Rs.3,000 as compensation to a customer for not replacing eyeglass.
Lenskart has also been directed to pay Rs.5,600, the cost of the product along with an interest of 12 percent from the date of purchase till its realization. Besides, the company has been asked to pay Rs. 2,000 as litigation cost.
The Commission has given 45 days' time to Lenskart to comply with the order.
Complainant Mohammed Sadiq Mahboob, a resident of New Malakpet, had urged the Commission to direct Lenskart to refund Rs.7,288 with a penalty and damages of Rs. one lakh for alleged harassment and humiliation. He requested the Commission to blacklist the showroom. The Commission decided to allow for partial compensation.
Sadiq had purchased an eyeglass product, a black full rim wayfarer from the Lenskart showroom in Malakpet on 8 May 2018 at Rs.7,299. He got a discount of Rs.1,299, and the product was billed at Rs.5,600.
Within a short period, the frame of the glass was broken and damaged. He contacted the staff at the Lenskart showroom who directed him to file a complaint to Lenskart online. In September 2018, he wrote an email and got a response from Lenskart that the product will be replaced. Lenskart showroom also agreed. But they did not keep the promise
When the complainant contacted Lenskart showroom, they asked him to contact the online team. When he contacted the online team, they asked him to visit the showroom.
Later, Sadiq sent a legal notice to the Lenskart showroom and the online team. The showroom authorities contacted Sadiq's counsel and again promised to replace the product. They also did an eye check-up for Sadiq. Sadiq went to the Lenskart showroom in Jubilee Hills to check the suitable glasses.
Once again, Sadiq enquired at the Lenskart Malakpet showroom about the delivery. They asked for a week's time but still, it was not delivered on time. Lenskart neither replaced the damaged class nor refunded the costs. Hence he filed a complaint at the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.
Lenskart online filed its argument in writing. It stated that the complaint is misconceived, unsustainable, and based upon a concocted story. "The officials of the company have been continuously asking the complainant to provide the alleged defective product to us for the quality check but the complainant has not provided the product till now.," Lenskart said.
They requested the Commission to dismiss the complaint with heavy costs.
The Commission noted that the company did not contest the matter even after receiving legal notice. Evaluating the evidence, the Commission said the company had clearly shown negligence, deficiency in services, and unfair trade practices. It said that the company had given false promises, deceiving, and had a time-dragging attitude.