Category: Consumer Complaints

The Kerala District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, held Polycab India Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for refusing to replace a defective inverter during the subsistence of the warranty period.

The complainant, Saju P. Joseph, filed a complaint against Polycab India Private Limited as he purchased Polycab Solar String Inverter for Rs. 84,450 from Libra Industries, for his residence and workplace. The product was covered by a five-year manufacturer’s warranty.

The inverter became defective and stopped functioning. A technician inspected the unit and replaced it the following day. However, the complainant noticed that during the replacement, the technician had replaced his 2021 model inverter with an older model. Subsequently, the replacement inverter also malfunctioned. Although a technician inspected the device and confirmed that it was defective, the opposite parties allegedly refused to replace it and instead attributed the fault to issues with the KSEB.

Due to the malfunctioning inverter, the complainant was unable to utilise the electricity generated by his solar panels and was forced to rely on power supplied by KSEB, resulting in additional expenses, including an electricity bill of Rs. 7,515. Despite repeated email requests seeking replacement or refund, the opposite parties allegedly did not respond adequately. Aggrieved by the refusal of the opposite parties to honour the five-year warranty, the complainant approached the Kerala District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking refund of the amount paid along with compensation.

Despite being duly served with notice, the opposite parties failed to appear before the Commission or file their written version within the prescribed time, and were therefore proceeded ex parte.

The Commission held that the opposite parties committed a gross deficiency in service by failing to replace the defective inverter in accordance with the warranty terms. It observed that the complainant had purchased the inverter based on the assurances of the opposite parties regarding its efficiency, durability, and its five-year manufacturer’s warranty but opposite parties failed to honour their obligations under the warranty by refusing to replace the defective inverter, even though it was still within the five-year warranty period.

Furthermore, the Commission, taking note of the financial hardship suffered by the complainant, observed that due to the malfunctioning inverter, he was unable to utilise the electricity generated from his solar panels and was compelled to rely on power supplied by KSEB, thereby incurring additional electricity expenses.

The Commission held that the opposite party were liable for deficiency in service for failing to extend the benefits of the warranty to the complainant, even though the defect had occurred during the subsistence of the warranty period.

Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund Rs. 84,450 to the complainant. Pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered. Pay Rs. 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible.

If you’re looking to hire a lawyer to file your case, click the given link –https://voxya.com/service/consumer-court-case

File a complaint now

The Ernakulam Consumer Commission provided relief to two consumers who filed a complaint against a bus operator for facing serious trouble during their journey.

In this case, a married couple from Ernakulam had booked bus tickets worth ₹3,174 to travel to Bengaluru for an important exam scheduled at 8:45 a.m. During the journey, the bus faced multiple problems. It had a flat tyre, was stopped at a check-post due to tax issues, and broke down several times before reaching Coimbatore. Worried about missing their exam, the couple decided to hire a taxi from Coimbatore to Bengaluru, which cost them ₹14,000.

When they asked the bus operator for a refund, they did not get any proper response. So, they approached the Ernakulam Consumer Commission. The bus company did not appear before the Commission, and the case was decided based on the couple’s evidence.

The Commission found that the bus service was careless and poorly managed. The Commission said that transport companies must provide safe and well-maintained vehicles and ensure timely service. If they fail to do so and cause inconvenience or extra expenses to passengers, it is considered a deficiency in service. It said the repeated breakdowns and delays showed a lack of proper maintenance and responsibility. The Commission held the company guilty of poor service and ordered it to refund the ticket amount of ₹3,174, pay ₹14,000 for taxi expenses, ₹25,000 as compensation for mental stress, and ₹5,000 for legal costs.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

If you are looking for legal advice to resolve a Travel Complaints, then Talk To A Lawyer now!

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Lodha Developers and its other companies to refund a senior-citizen couple nearly ₹5 crore for unilaterally issuing a termination letter for an apartment booked at World Towers in Lower Parel.

The Chatterjees, retired senior citizens, who had booked a 3 BHK apartment in World Crest’s World Towers with two parking slots for ₹12,22,22,160, have filed a complaint against Lodha Developers.

The booking was made under the 20:80 payment scheme, where the latter portion was to be financed by the Chatterjees by selling their existing accommodation.

They were promised delivery by March 2016, but they decided to exit the project. The developer asked them to shift their booking to a 4 BHK with three garages in another project, ‘The Park’, in the vicinity, for ₹8 crore – possession would be given in June 2018.

By then, they had paid ₹2.52 crore for the earlier apartment, which was transferred to the second, larger residence. In October 2016, the builder informed them that the flat’s price had been revised to ₹10 crore, requiring them to pay an additional ₹2 crore.

They once again decided to cancel the booking but were told that a 10% cancellation fee, amounting to ₹1.2 crore, would be levied.

After demonetisation was announced in November 2016 and real estate prices crashed, the Chatterjees received calls from the marketing department, offering similar flats at around ₹7-8 crore. However, the developer refused to extend the revised price to the senior citizens.

Therefore, the complainant approached the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The complainants, through their lawyer, claimed that despite paying ₹2,83,59,554, they received neither a refund nor possession, yet the builder terminated the booking.

Opposing the contention, the developer claimed the petition was a “gross abuse of process of law” and that they were justified in terminating the agreement and forfeiting 10% of the consideration amount.

In their argument, the developer claimed the Chatterjees were unable to take a workable stand and failed to make payments as per the milestones. Moreover, they had bought the flat “purely for investment purposes”.

After hearing both sides, the commission decided that the developers’ actions constituted a deficiency in service. It also observed that the builder had “unilaterally” issued a termination letter and deducted a substantial portion of the amount paid solely on grounds of payment delay. Such a unilateral stance is not permissible under the law.

The commission held that the developer had made a misleading representations regarding the failure to deliver possession of the flat within the stipulated timeframe, had committed a breach of trust, and was guilty of unfair trade practices.

Hence, the developer will have to not only refund the entire sum of ₹2.83 crore, but also pay the Chatterjees 10% interest starting August 2018, amounting to ₹2.12 crore.

If you are unable to get any resolution from the real estate company even after informing them about your problem, then you should File a Complaint at Voxya.com to take legal action and approach consumer forum.

If you’re looking to hire a lawyer to file your case, click the given link –https://voxya.com/service/consumer-court-case

File a complaint now