Consumer Forum orders Durga Bhavani Industries to refund Rs. 3.9L for pending elevator installation

Ranga Reddy: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Ranga Reddy has directed Durga Bhavani Industries, represented by its proprietor Moyya Raja Shekar, to refund Rs. 3,99,861 (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty-One Only) to the complainant, Vadlakonda Santosh Kumar, residing at Bagh Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The decision was made after the Commission found that the opposite party had failed to fulfill its contractual obligation of supplying and installing an elevator as agreed.

The Commission also ordered the opposite party to pay 9% annual interest on the refunded amount from July 11, 2023, until full realization. Additionally, Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand Only) was awarded as compensation for the complainant's physical inconvenience and mental distress. The opposite party was further directed to pay Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in legal costs.

The opposite party must comply with the order within 45 days of receiving it. If the payment is not made within this period, the interest rate will increase to 12% per annum from the default date until the amount is fully paid.

A complaint was filed against Durga Bhavani Industries after the company failed to complete the installation of a G 2 telescopic manual door elevator, despite receiving a payment of Rs. 3,99,861 from the complainant. The contract, signed on July 11, 2023, stipulated that the installation would be completed within nine weeks. However, only the elevator frames were installed, and the remaining work was not finished.

Despite repeated requests from the complainant, the work remained unfinished, and the complainant had to conduct a housewarming ceremony without the fully installed elevator. After sending a legal notice on September 27, 2023, demanding the completion of the installation, the complainant engaged an alternative service provider, incurring an additional cost of Rs. 5,60,000.

The Commission considered the complainant's evidence, including WhatsApp communication, legal notices, and the opposite party's failure to appear before the Commission. Based on this, the Commission concluded that the opposite party had violated the terms of the agreement and engaged in unfair trade practices, leading to the refund order and compensation.