Failure To Deliver Furniture Within Promised Time & Misleading Dispatch Claim Amount To Deficiency In Service: North Goa District Consumer Commission
Pranav B Prem
The North Goa District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Porvorim has directed Lakkadhaara Furniture Company to refund ₹88,200 along with compensation of ₹30,000 after holding the company guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failure to deliver a bed set within the assured time and for providing misleading information regarding its dispatch. The complaint was decided by a Bench comprising Ms. Bela N. Naik (President) and Mr. Auroliano de Oliveira (Member).
The complainant, Ms. Teena Sareen, had placed an online order for a bed set worth ₹88,200 on 07.11.2024 through the official website of the opposite party, Lakkadhaara, and made full payment using a credit card. The website explicitly assured that the product would be delivered within a period of 5–6 weeks, and relying upon this representation, the complainant proceeded with the purchase.
Despite the expiry of the promised delivery period, no proactive communication was made by the furniture company. After repeated follow-ups by the complainant, she was informed on 24.12.2024 that the bed set had been dispatched. Thereafter, on 30.12.2024, the opposite party shared a tracking number with the complainant. Upon verification, it was revealed that only a shipping label had been generated and the consignment had not been picked up, rendering the claim of dispatch misleading.
In view of the delay and lack of transparency, the complainant lost confidence in the company and cancelled her order on 30.12.2024, which was duly acknowledged by the opposite party. She also initiated a chargeback dispute with her bank. Although the complainant was informed that the seller would process the refund after certain calculations, no refund was issued despite repeated follow-ups.
The Commission noted that the opposite party failed to file any written version or contest the proceedings, despite being duly served. However, in its communication with the complainant’s bank, the furniture company attributed the delay to weather-related production issues and proposed deduction of shipping charges along with a 10% penalty while processing the refund.
After examining the documentary evidence on record, including WhatsApp chat communications, the Commission observed that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in delivery and that the opposite party had admitted the delay while issuing repeated assurances. The Bench found that the conduct of the opposite party in falsely claiming dispatch of the product and failing to refund the amount amounted to misleading conduct and unfair trade practice.
The Commission further observed that the complainant’s evidence remained unrebutted on merits, as the opposite party neither appeared nor contested the allegations. It held that the complainant had successfully established deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the furniture company. Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed Lakkadhaara Furniture Company to refund the entire purchase amount of ₹88,200 towards the cancelled bed set and to pay ₹30,000 as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant. The proceedings were ordered to be closed.
Cause Title: Ms. Teena Sareen v. M/s Lakkadhaara Furniture Company
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 58 of 2025
Coram: Ms. Bela N. Naik (President) and Mr. Auroliano de Oliveira (Member)
