Consumer panel asks Home Center to pay 25,000 compensation


After Home Center claimed that a product sold at a reduced price was not covered by the warranty because it was not treated properly, a district consumer commission found the statement contradictory and ordered the company to pay 25,000 in compensation for a sofa set that developed tears.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II, Hyderabad, was handling a complaint filed by Niyathi Reddy (39) against Home Center at Inorbit Mall and its head office (opposing parties).

The complainant said on January 28, 2018, she purchased a sofa set for 61,020, a reduced price, and claimed that opposing parties assured her that it was durable and came with a warranty. one year. But, within four months, he developed tears and she felt the product was substandard. On July 11, 2018, she informed the other side of the issue, who filed a complaint, sent a representative to inspect the sofa, and promised to resolve the issue. She claimed the company also told her the sofa would be replaced, but did not.

However, Home Center denied all allegations and claimed tears developed due to improper and inadequate maintenance. The product, they added, was not covered by warranty, and this was brought to the complainant’s attention in an email sent on July 25, 2018.

Taking the evidence on file, the commission indicated that on the one hand, the tax invoice filed by the opposing parties does not show that the product is not covered by the warranty, but on the other hand, in the email sent on July 25, 2018, he stated that the damage “occurred due to improper or inadequate maintenance of the product, therefore, we deeply regret to inform you that the warranty will not apply in this case”.

“In order to escape reimbursement and replace the product, the opposing parties had taken different versions and thus admitted the complainant’s case as evidenced by Ex. B3 ”, declared the commission, Ex B3 being the e-mail.

The commission found that the opposing parties had engaged in disloyal acts and service failure and ordered them to reimburse ₹ 61,020, pay compensation of ₹ 25,000 and impose costs of ₹ 10,000.


Source link

Previous HSF hangs Mayer Brown as head of insurance in London
Next COVID insurance decisions misinterpret 'physical loss'