Back
Ernakulam consumer court orders to refund ₹2.69 lakh to retired High Court judge
The has directed home elevator manufacturer Private Ltd. to refund ₹2,69,865 with 7.25% interest to a retired judge and his wife, after finding the company guilty of and . The order, passed on by a bench of President D.B. Binu, Member V. Ramachandran, and Member Sreevidhia T.N., also imposed ₹25,000 in .
A Promise of Convenience Turns Sour
Justice (Retd.) T.R. Ramachandran Nair and his wife Mrs. Suja Ramachandran approached in 2022 to install a home elevator at their Cochin residence. The need arose because Mrs. Ramachandran suffered from knee pain and was advised to avoid climbing stairs, yet the house had no bedroom on the ground floor. After seeing the company's advertisement on YouTube, they contacted the local office in Fort Kochi and were given a demonstration.
On , following assurances from the company’s Business Development Manager (BDM), the couple paid 25% of the total cost — ₹2,69,865 — as an advance. The BDM had promised that if the technical team found any feasibility issues, the amount would be refunded. A stabilizer payment of ₹22,500 was also made separately.
When the technical team finally visited on , they discovered that the front door of the drawing room lacked the required 1-meter width to bring the lift inside. The only alternative suggested — cutting open window grills — was rejected by the complainants, who feared damage to their recently renovated home. They cancelled the order via email on , and demanded a refund.
Company’s Stance: “No Cancellation Once Order Confirmed”
contended that the complainants had entered into a with a clear . The company argued that its technical team had offered multiple solutions, including delivering the lift in parts through a 750mm-wide opening, and that the complainants had even reconfirmed the project on . The company claimed the complainants were unwilling to make minor furniture adjustments, and that the order could not be cancelled once confirmed.
Commission’s Verdict: Technical Responsibility Lies with the Company
The Commission appointed an expert commissioner to inspect the site, whose report confirmed that installing the lift would require relocating furniture — including a sofa-cum-bed and a three-seater sofa — thereby altering the room’s layout and usability.
In its analysis, the Commission held that the company, being the technically skilled party, bore the responsibility of properly assessing the feasibility before accepting payment. The complainants, as consumers, could not be expected to foresee such installation challenges.
“The complainants need not be technically skill enough to evaluate the consequences of installing the machine even before it is being installed. But the opposite parties in this case, must obviously be aware of the consequence and aftereffect of such an installation.”
The Commission found that “had not exercised proper attention; care etc. while entering into the agreement” and that the failure to conduct an adequate constituted and .
The Final Order
The Commission ordered the first opposite party ( Private Ltd.) and the second opposite party (the Business Development Manager) to :
- Refund ₹2,69,865 with interest at 7.25% from the date of filing the complaint () until realization.
- Pay ₹25,000 as .
The entire amount must be paid within 45 days, failing which the interest rate on the refund amount will continue to apply. The second opposite party was set for failing to file a written version.
The ruling reinforces the principle that companies cannot shift the burden of onto consumers and must exercise before accepting advance payments.
