Failure To Deliver Bed & Mattresses, South-West Delhi Commission Holds 'Homstyl Furniture' Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West, Delhi bench of Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), Harshali Kaur (Member) and Ramesh Chand Yadav (Member) held 'Homstyl Furniture' liable for liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, for its failure to deliver bed and mattresses despite receiving an advance payment. Homstyl Furniture was directed to refund the advance payment and pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant. Brief Facts: The Complainant purchased a bed and a mattress from Homstyl Furniture (“Store”) mattresses for Rs. 73,000/-. The Complainant made a partial payment of Rs. 30,000/- in cash. The Complainant stated that time was of the essence as the bed was urgently needed to replace his son's worn-out bed. However, the Store failed to deliver the bed and mattresses on the agreed date. Despite the Complainant's repeated attempts to contact the Store via WhatsApp messages and phone calls, it did not respond. Due to the non-delivery, the Complainant's son had to manage without a bed during the peak winter months of February and March. This severely affected his sleep. Even after two weeks from the scheduled delivery date, the bed was not provided. In one of its WhatsApp conversations, the Store assured the Complainant that the bed would be delivered in a couple of weeks. However, the Store neither delivered the bed nor refunded the amount. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi (“District Commission”) against the Store. The Store did not appear before the District Commission for the proceedings. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission referred to the bill issued by the Store and noted that the Complainant purchased a bed and mattresses for a total sum of Rs. 73,000/-. However, it was observed that the Store neither delivered the goods nor refunded the advance amount to the Complainant. The District Commission held that this conduct on the part of the Store constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It held that the failure to fulfill the contractual obligations and the subsequent breach of assurance to refund the amount demonstrated negligence and a lack of adherence to fair business practices on the part of the Store. Consequently, the District Commission directed the Store to refund the advance amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainant. Further, the Store was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant for mental harassment and litigation expenses incurred due to its conduct. Case Title: Gyanendra Srivastava vs Homstyl Furniture Case Number: DC/84/CC/91/2024 Advocate for the Complainant: None Advocate for the Opposite Party: None (ex-parte) Date of Judgment: 11.03.2025 Click here to download Order/Judgement

Failure To Deliver Bed & Mattresses, South-West Delhi Commission Holds 'Homstyl Furniture' Liable

Smita Singh

Tags