Pranav B Prem

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar has allowed a consumer complaint against Home Centre, holding that the supply of a defective almirah and the failure to effectively rectify the defects amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission directed Home Centre to replace the almirah and also awarded compensation and litigation costs to the complainant. The order was passed by a Bench comprising Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Mandeep Kaur (Member) in a complaint filed by Dr. Karan Grewal.

Also Read: Delhi State Consumer Commission Holds Advance Plot Booking Doesn’t Create Right To Allotment, Upholds Refund With Interest

The complainant purchased a cupboard/almirah from Home Centre on 21 July 2020 for a consideration of ₹1,17,900. The product was delivered in packed condition on 8 September 2020. When company carpenters visited the complainant’s premises on 18 September 2020 for installation, it was found that incorrect doors had been supplied. During the course of installation, the almirah allegedly developed scratches and could not be installed properly, rendering it unusable.

Despite repeated visits by the company’s staff and assurances that the defects would be rectified or the doors replaced, the cupboard remained uninstalled. The complainant repeatedly contacted the opposite parties through emails and also issued a legal notice seeking redressal. However, no effective solution was provided, compelling him to approach the Consumer Commission.

In its defence, Home Centre contended that the wardrobe had been selected by the complainant from online options and that installation was carried out by company carpenters. It was claimed that although incorrect doors of the same side were initially delivered, the correct doors were later supplied and installed on 1 October 2020 in the presence of a customer service representative, after which the complainant had allegedly expressed satisfaction. The opposite parties further argued that there was no manufacturing defect and that the complainant sought refund merely due to dissatisfaction and alleged instability of the product.

After considering the pleadings and material on record, the Commission rejected the contentions of Home Centre. It noted that despite multiple opportunities, the opposite party failed to provide a fully functional and properly installed almirah to the complainant. The Commission observed that the complainant had paid a substantial amount but was deprived of the use of the cupboard for a prolonged period.

Relying on the settled principle that where two plausible views are possible, the view favourable to the consumer should be adopted, the Commission held that the opposite party had supplied a defective product and failed to render proper service despite repeated requests for rectification. It further held that such conduct clearly amounted to deficiency in service. The Commission also took note of the mental harassment and inconvenience caused to the complainant, who was compelled to pursue prolonged litigation solely due to the inaction of the opposite party.

Also Read: Repudiation Of Insurance Claim Based On Assumptions Without Evidence Is Deficiency In Service: Delhi State Consumer Commission

Accordingly, the Amritsar Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the complaint and directed Home Centre to replace the almirah with a new one of the same make and model or, alternatively, an upgraded model, subject to payment of any price difference by the complainant. In addition, the Commission awarded ₹10,000 as compensation for mental harassment and ₹3,000 towards litigation costs. The opposite party was directed to comply with the order within the stipulated time, failing which it would be liable for further consequences in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Dr. Karan Grewal v. Home Centre

Case No: Consumer Complaint No.: 47 of 2021

Coram: Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Mandeep Kaur (Member)