Facts

The complaint was filed by retired Kerala High Court Judge Justice (Retd.) T.R. Ramachandran Nair and his wife Suja Ramachandran, who approached Nibav Lifts after seeing advertisements for home elevators. The couple intended to install a lift in their residence as the second complainant suffered from knee pain and had been advised to avoid climbing stairs.

The company's representatives inspected the house and identified locations where the elevator could allegedly be installed without affecting the existing furniture arrangement. Relying on these assurances, the complainants agreed to proceed with the project. The total cost of the elevator was quoted at ₹10.79 lakh, and the complainants paid ₹2,69,865 as advance, along with ₹22,500 towards a stabilizer. They claimed that the company had assured them that the amount would be refunded if the project later proved unfeasible.

However, when the technical team subsequently inspected the site, it found that the lift could not be brought into the house through the available entrance due to insufficient width. Although alternative options, including bringing the lift through a window opening, were suggested, the complainants were unwilling to undertake additional structural alterations. They therefore cancelled the order on 8 August 2022 and sought a refund of the amounts paid.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

Nibav Lifts contended that the complainants had voluntarily entered into the agreement after understanding its terms and conditions, including the cancellation policy. According to the company, there was no feasibility issue and its technical team had proposed alternative solutions that would have enabled installation without compromising the quality of the lift or the aesthetics of the house. It argued that the complainants insisted on cancelling the order despite these alternatives and were therefore not entitled to a refund.

The company further submitted that, as per its policy, 25% of the project cost would be deducted in the event of cancellation. The second opposite party did not file a written version and was set ex parte.

Observations & Decision

The Commission relied on the evidence adduced by the complainants, the deposition of PW-1, and the report of the Expert Commissioner. The expert report revealed that installation of the lift at the proposed location would significantly affect the existing layout of the residence and require substantial rearrangement of furniture, including displacement of major household items.

The Commission observed that consumers cannot be expected to possess the technical expertise necessary to evaluate the structural and spatial consequences of installing a home elevator. That responsibility rested on the company and its technical personnel. It held that the opposite parties ought to have conducted a proper feasibility assessment before accepting the advance amount and entering into the agreement.

Holding that the company accepted the advance amount without adequately assessing feasibility and without informing the complainants about the structural consequences of the proposed installation, the Commission concluded that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed Nibav Lifts Private Ltd. and its Business Development Manager to jointly and severally refund ₹2,69,865 to the complainants with interest at 7.25% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realization. It also awarded ₹25,000 towards litigation costs and directed compliance within 45 days.

Case Title: Justice (Retd.) T.R. Ramachandran Nair & Anr. v. Nibav Lifts Private Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 217/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order