Justice TR Ramachandran Nair, Nibav Lifts 
News

Kerala consumer court orders lift company to refund ₹2.69 lakh to retired High Court judge, wife

Retired Justice TR Ramachandran Nair and his wife approached the court after the lift company refused to refund their advance.

Praisy Thomas

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) at Ernakulam recently directed Nibav Lifts to refund ₹2.69 lakh with interest to a retired Kerala High Court judge and his wife after finding deficiency in services and unfair trade practice in connection with the proposed installation of a home elevator [Justice (Retd) TR Ramachandran Nair & anr v Nibav Lifts Private Ltd & anr].

A Bench of President DB Binu along with members V Ramachandran and Sreevidhia TN found that the company had failed to properly analyse whether the lift could be installed at the couple's residence before accepting the advance payment.

The commission stressed that consumers cannot be expected to have the technical knowledge required to understand the consequences of installing such equipment and added that the responsibility was on the company, which had the necessary technical expertise to properly examine the site and explain the implications of the installation.

"From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the opposite parties had not exercised proper attention; care etc. while entering into the agreement of installation of the lift at the house of the complainants or they ought not have made proper and adequate assessment of the feasibility of installing the lift in the house of the complainant. The complainants need not be technically skill enough to evaluate the consequences of installing the machine even before it is being installed," the commission said on August 13.

It thus ordered Nibav Lifts and its Business Development Manager to jointly refund ₹2,69,865 to the couple along with an interest of 7.25% from the date of filing of the complaint until the payment.

The commission also ordered the company to pay ₹25,000 towards litigation costs.

Retired Justice TR Ramachandran Nair and his wife had approached Nibav Lifts after coming across an advertisement for its home elevators on YouTube.

The couple wanted a lift since their bedroom was not on the ground floor and the judge's wife had been medically advised to avoid climbing stairs.

A company representative inspected their house and identified certain portions as suitable locations for installing the lift.

After being assured that the installation would not disturb their existing furniture arrangements, the couple were asked to pay 25% of the total installation amount in advance before the technical team conducted final measurements.

The company representative also assured them that the advance would be refunded if the technical team subsequently found any difficulty in going ahead with the project.

On the basis of these assurances, the couple made an advance payment of ₹2.69 lakh in July 2022.

However, when the technical team inspected the house, it found that there wasn't sufficient space to bring the lift inside the house from the entrance and suggested cutting open the grill of a window as an alternative.

The couple was unwilling to do so because of the possible damage and additional work involved.

They cancelled the order on August 8 and sought refund of the advanced amount.

When the company refused to refund the amount, the couple approached the consumer court alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The company opposed the complaint and maintained that there was no deficiency in its service.

It said that the technical team had suggested alternative ways to install the lift without compromising its quality or the aesthetics of the house but the couple insisted on cancelling the project despite the alternatives presented.

The commission, however, stated that it is the company's responsibility rather than the consumers to understand the technical consequences of installing the elevator.

It held that failure to properly assess the feasibility and consequences of the installation amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and directed the company to refund the advance to the couple, along with litigations costs.

Advocates Sharan Shahier and Arjun Raghavan appeared for the complainants.

Advocate Ajay NS represented the company.

[Read Order]

Justice (Retd) TR Ramachandran Nair & anr v Nibav Lifts Private Ltd & anr.pdf
Preview

₹2,700 cancer medicine sold for ₹27,000: Supreme Court flags "broad daylight dacoity" of patients

LADC scheme removal: Prioritising misguided concerns over the right to legal aid?

Spoiling his own case: Bombay High Court pulls up Vijay Mallya for posting ED affidavit on X

P&H High Court raps Punjab for delay tactics in employees' DA case, summons Chief Secretary

Who can afford to become a judge?

SCROLL FOR NEXT