Kerala Consumer Court Orders Refund Over Deficient Service
In a recent ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Ernakulam ordered Nibav Lifts to refund ₹2.69 lakh, plus interest, to a retired Kerala High Court judge and his wife. The commission found the company guilty of service deficiencies and engaging in unfair trade practices related to a proposed home elevator installation. The case is titled Justice (Retd) TR Ramachandran Nair & anr v Nibav Lifts Private Ltd & anr.
Commission’s Findings on Service Deficiency
The bench, comprising President DB Binu and members V Ramachandran and Sreevidhia TN, concluded that Nibav Lifts failed to adequately assess the feasibility of installing the elevator at the complainants’ residence before taking an advance payment. The commission emphasized that the technical burden lay with the company, which should have informed the couple of potential installation challenges.
“From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the opposite parties had not exercised proper attention and care while entering into the agreement of installation of the lift at the house of the complainants,” the commission noted in its August 13 ruling. It further stated that the complainants, not being technical experts, could not evaluate potential issues with the installation.
Details of the Consumer Complaint
Retired Justice TR Ramachandran Nair and his wife sought a home elevator after encountering Nibav Lifts’ advertisement on YouTube. Due to medical advice against stair climbing, they decided to install a lift. A company representative visited their home, identified potential sites for the elevator, and assured them that existing furniture arrangements would not be disturbed. The couple paid a 25% advance, amounting to ₹2.69 lakh, based on assurances that it would be refundable if installation proved unfeasible.
However, the technical team later determined that insufficient space existed for the elevator’s installation, suggesting an alternative that involved structural modifications. Unwilling to proceed with the suggested changes, the couple canceled the order on August 8 and demanded a refund, which the company refused, leading the couple to file a complaint.
Commission’s Decision and Order
Nibav Lifts defended its position by proposing alternatives that preserved the home’s aesthetic appeal, but the couple declined. The commission rejected the company’s defense, holding it accountable for failing to foresee installation challenges. It declared the company’s actions constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Consequently, the DCDRC ordered Nibav Lifts and its Business Development Manager to jointly refund the ₹2,69,865 advance, with interest at 7.25% from the complaint’s filing date until settlement. Additionally, the company must pay ₹25,000 towards litigation costs.
Advocates Sharan Shahier and Arjun Raghavan represented the complainants, while Advocate Ajay NS appeared for the company.
