A senior advocate in Bengaluru has secured a favorable order from a consumer court against a lift manufacturing company for severe deficiencies in service and installation of a residential elevator. However, the execution of the order, which includes a substantial refund and compensation, has been temporarily halted following an appeal by the firm.
A Promise of Hassle-Free Service Turns Sour
Advocate Narasimhaiah K, aged 60, built a three-floor duplex in Chandra Layout and decided to install an elevator for convenience. In October 2021, representatives from Unosafe Elevator approached him, offering a hassle-free installation with a long-term warranty and round-the-clock service. Trusting their assurances, Narasimhaiah entered into an agreement on October 8, 2021, purchasing the elevator for Rs 7.4 lakh, inclusive of GST.
He paid an advance of Rs 74,000, but troubles began almost immediately. The company was unclear about the payment schedule and delayed supplying materials. The installation itself was repeatedly postponed, forcing Narasimhaiah to delay his housewarming ceremony twice. Even after an extra payment of Rs 30,000 for a luxury cabin, the final product was deeply flawed.
Multiple Defects and Safety Risks Identified
Upon installation, the elevator was found to be defective, smaller than promised, and of lower capacity. Narasimhaiah alleged the use of substandard materials, including a weak, non-branded hoist cable that posed serious safety risks. Instead of the promised MONA brand motor, a second-hand unit was installed.
The elevator's operation was marred by constant jerking, loud noise, and frequent breakdowns where it would get stuck between floors. Additional faults included malfunctioning doors, a non-functional fan, and a critical lack of essential safety features like a stabilizer and emergency contact details. A technician's visit in April 2023 failed to resolve the noise issue.
Despite a legal notice sent on June 23, 2023, and a damning independent inspection report from SHS Elevator Services confirming severe defects, the company refused to rectify the problems. Left with no recourse, Narasimhaiah filed a formal complaint with the Bengaluru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on June 25, 2024.
Consumer Commission's Strong Rebuke and Order
The consumer commission noted that Unosafe Elevator's representatives failed to submit their version of events despite being given ample opportunity. The commission examined the company's response to the legal notice, in which it stated it would halt all services until legal issues were resolved and disclaimed responsibility for any accidents.
This move was sharply criticized by the forum. The commission stated that halting work after receiving payment clearly indicated deficiency in service and negligence. It emphasized that leaving the elevator in a dangerous, unverified state constituted an unfair trade practice that exposed the family to life-threatening risks.
In its ruling, the commission directed Unosafe Elevator to rectify all defects in the elevator. Should they fail, they must either replace the entire unit with a new one or refund the entire amount of Rs 7.7 lakh with 9% interest. Additionally, the company was ordered to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for the advocate's hardship and Rs 20,000 to cover litigation costs.
However, following an appeal by the company, the execution of this order has been fully stayed, and the matter remains sub-judice. The case highlights the challenges consumers face even after winning a favorable verdict and the prolonged nature of legal battles against deficient services.
