Dhananjay Jog
Man, as is famously said, is a social animal. Our psyche largely depends on our interaction with others. While animals like koalas and snow leopards are solitary, humans need companionship. Apart from a rare handful of hermits who meditate in isolation for years in Himalayan caves, the rest of us rely on social connections.
This need for interaction has given rise to clubs, groups, and associations. Even the very concept of ‘family’ comes from this. We regularly exchange visits with friends, and when a friend visits with their family, as a host, you naturally want to make their stay enjoyable. A major aspect of hospitality is ensuring their comfort—hence, the importance of comfortable furniture. And that is the subject of today’s article.
Mahesh Raikar (all names changed) understood this well—not for himself, but for his niece, who was soon to be married. He believed that having comfortable seating for guests would create a warm and welcoming atmosphere in her new home. With this in mind, he decided to give her a sofa as a wedding present.
Raikar visited multiple showrooms but was disappointed to find long waiting periods for the sofa he wanted. Fortunately, at a furniture exhibition in the city, he came across ‘Premium Furniture’, a Nagpur-based company displaying a range of options. Among their collection, he found the ‘Trolley-cum-bed three-seater sofa’, which fit his needs perfectly.
While he liked the model, he preferred a different colour. The company provided a catalog with various patterns and colours, and he selected one to his liking. Most importantly, they promised delivery within 10 days—ideal, given the approaching wedding. He placed an order with an advance payment of Rs. 12,000, agreeing to pay the remaining Rs. 20,000 upon delivery.
However, this was just the beginning of his troubles. When the sofa arrived, Raikar was shocked to find that it was a completely different model—cheaper in quality, the wrong colour, and even appearing used. By then, the exhibition had ended, so he immediately contacted the company. He demanded that they take back the substandard sofa and refund his money. The manager at Premium Furniture admitted that a mistake had been made and assured Raikar that the correct sofa would be delivered while the wrong one would be retrieved.
Sadly, this promise was never fulfilled. Left with no other choice, Raikar travelled 120 km to Belgaum, where he found a suitable replacement and had it transported to Goa—an unplanned expense, but one he was willing to bear for his niece’s happiness.
Despite repeated calls to Premium Furniture, all he received were vague assurances that his order would be delivered ‘within a few days’. Those days turned into weeks, and eventually, the company stopped responding altogether. Realising he had been duped, Raikar decided to take legal action and approached the Consumer Commission, citing ‘Unfair Trade Practices’.
The charge was clear—Premium Furniture had falsely represented the quality of their product, promising one thing and delivering another. Raikar not only sought a refund but also reimbursement for the additional expenses incurred in purchasing and transporting a new sofa. He also requested compensation for the mental stress caused by the ordeal.
A legal notice was sent to Premium Furniture via registered post, giving them the opportunity to respond. Though the notice was delivered, neither a company representative nor a lawyer appeared, nor was any written reply submitted. As a result, the case proceeded ex-parte (in their absence). While every party is given an opportunity to defend themselves—after all, no one should be condemned unheard—if a party chooses to ignore legal proceedings, the case moves forward at their own risk.
Raikar’s counsel presented written submissions, photographic evidence (showing the sofa displayed at the exhibition versus the one delivered), and oral arguments. Two questions guided the judgment:
1. Did Premium Furniture engage in a deficiency of service and unfair trade practices?
2. Did Raikar suffer monetary loss and other damages, making him eligible for relief and compensation?
The answer to both was a clear yes. While human errors happen (‘To err is human’), Premium Furniture made no effort to rectify their mistake. If they had promptly replaced the incorrect sofa, Raikar would not have had to file a consumer complaint. The company had promised to send the correct product but failed to follow through. Given that Raikar had paid Rs. 32,000 in full, only to receive the wrong item, the charge of deficiency of service and unfair trade practices was proven beyond doubt.
The evidence, including Raikar’s affidavit and payment records, confirmed that he had paid Rs. 32,000 to Premium Furniture. Also, he provided bills totaling Rs. 52,000 for the purchase and transportation of the alternate sofa from Belgaum. His patience in waiting for Premium Furniture to fulfill their promise, despite the approaching wedding, was also taken into account. The mental stress and inconvenience caused were undeniable.
As a result, the commission ordered Premium Furniture to refund Rs. 32,000 with 9% interest from the date of the initial payment. Also, Raikar was awarded Rs. 25,000 as compensation. The company was given 30 days to comply.
It is rare for consumers to return and inform the commission whether judgments have been followed. However, if an order is not obeyed, consumers have the right to seek ‘Execution’, which enforces compliance. In this case, more than a year had passed without Raikar filing for execution—suggesting that Premium Furniture had indeed fulfilled the order.
(If you have any questions, comments, or if you are a consumer seeking assistance, please feel free to email me at danjog@yahoo.com)
