No allowed clipboard formats could have been pasted.CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT MADURAI @ District Court Campus, Madurai - 20 Present : Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH … PRESIDENT F.A. No.231/2024 (Against Order dt.12.02.2024 in RBT/C.C.No.52/2024 on the file of DCDRC, Madurai)

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 K. Ramanathan & Co., Through its Proprietor, Nibav Building, 2^nd Floor, New No.23, Old No.11, Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. ... Appellant/1^st Opposite Party.

Vs.

1. Dr. P. Natarajan, Tilak Nagar, Tirunelveli-1. … 1^st Respondent/Complainant.

2. The Managing Director, Thyssen Krupp Home Elevator, 5/84-1, SH 55, Butt Road, Mount Poonamallee Road, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. … 2nd Respondent/2nd Opposite Party.

Counsel for Appellant/O.P.-1 : M/s. M. Sakthi Vengatesh.

Counsel for R-1/Complainant : M/s.C. Madhu Sri.

Counsel for R-2/OP-2 : Called absent.

The 1^st Respondent, as Complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an exparte order and allowed the complaint, in part. Against which, this appeal has been preferred praying to set aside the exparte order of the District Commission, Madurai dated 12.02.2024 in RBT/C.C.No.52/2024.

This appeal is coming before me for hearing finally, today. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both sides through video conferencing and upon perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

ORDER

THIRU.R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT(Open court)

1. The 1^st opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant and his wife are renowned doctors and due to his wife’s illness, the complainant ordered a staircase lift in his house with the 1^st opposite party. For which, he had issued a cheque for Rs.6,90,000/- to the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party represented that the chair elevator will be imported from Holland and it will be installed within 8 weeks. But, on 20.02.2018, they have supplied an old stair case lift, instead of brand new.

On 23.02.2018, the opposite parties’ team who came for installation, were unable to install the lift due to wrong design of the rails. When the complainant informed the same to the 1^st opposite party, they asked him to cut the load bearing wall to suit their wrongly designed rails and construct an artificial step and also demanded money. Inspite of repeated emails and telephonic calls, on 14.03.2018, the 1^st opposite party had sent an email that they will rectify the defect after receiving report from their engineers who prepared the design. Hence, the complainant made alterations by putting artificial steps in his house. Again, the technician who visited the complainant’s house was unable to install the lift due to the wrongly designed rails and they suggested the complainant to order a new set of rails. On 24.04.2018, the 1^st opposite party demanded Rs.1,56,783/- for ordering the new set of rail. Even after 8 months, the lift was not installed which caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence, alleging deficiency of service, the complainant has filed the complaint to direct to refund the amount of Rs.6,90,000/- along with interest towards the cost of lift paid by the complainant and to remove the badly designed rail and the old machine supplied at their own cost and to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation of mental agony and to pay cost.

3. Though notice was served on the appellant/1^st opposite party, they remained absent before the District Commission. Hence, an exparte order was passed in favour of the 1^st respondent/complainant by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and directed to take back the defective and seco