The Ernakulam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered a Bengaluru-based company to pay ₹30,000 to a customer as compensation for delivering a smartwatch that had a colour different from the one mentioned in the order.
The Commission comprising president D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. issued the verdict on a petition filed by one Deveesh Haridas of Irumpanam against Sangeetha Mobiles Private Limited.
According to the petitioner, he made a UPI transfer of ₹3,999 for a new black smartwatch he had seen on the website of the opposite party who promised to deliver the watch through courier. However, the complainant received a pink smartwatch instead of the black one.
An unboxing video of the incorrect delivery was recorded. The complainant informed the opposite party about the issue through multiple emails but to no avail. The complainant then raised the issue on the opposite party’s Instagram page. Only after this did the opposite party’s office respond, stating they would resolve the issue within 24 hours. However, no action was taken even thereafter, the complainant said.
The Commission observed that the opposite party’s conscious failure to file their written version despite having received the Commission’s notice amounted to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. The case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party.
“The complainant had intended to purchase the black smartwatch to wear at his cousin’s wedding in October 2023, and the incorrect delivery caused significant inconvenience and disappointment during an important family event. The Commission acknowledges the substantial mental distress, hardship, and financial losses suffered by the complainant due to the negligence and deceptive practices of the opposite party.
“Therefore, the Commission holds the opposite party liable for compensation and the costs of proceedings,” the Commission said.
Consequently, the opposite party has been asked to pay ₹20,000 as compensation for the loss and damage suffered due to negligence, unfair trade practice, and deficiency in service and another ₹10,000 towards cost of litigation.
