Bengaluru: A city advocate, who was left struggling with defective installation of a lift at his new residence, took a Bengaluru-based lift maker to court recently.
The Bengaluru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered Unosafe Elevator to fix the machine, replace it or refund the customer Rs 7.7 lakh and pay him Rs 1 lakh as compensation, and Rs 20,000 as litigation costs.
Advocate Narasimhaiah K, 60, constructed a three-floor duplex residential building in Chandra Layout and wanted an elevator for it. Unosafe Elevator’s sales representatives approached him and offered to install it. Trusting the company and its assurance of a hassle-free elevator and long-term warranty with 24/7 service, Narasimhaiah purchased the elevator for Rs 7.4 lakh, inclusive of 18% GST, and signed an agreement on Oct 8, 2021.
He paid an advance of Rs 74,000 via cheque for the elevator, unaware of the troubles ahead. The company neither supplied the materials initially nor clarified the payment structure. Later, he was asked to pay in three stages, with materials provided after the first payment. After paying through the third stage, materials were supplied, and installation began. Despite paying an additional Rs 30,000 for a luxury cabin, the company delayed the installation, forcing him to postpone his housewarming ceremony twice.
Even after the installation, the elevator was defective, smaller than agreed and of lesser capacity than had been promised. Narasimhaiah alleged that the company used substandard materials, including a weak, non-branded hoist cable posing safety risks. Instead of a branded MONA motor, it had installed a second-hand one. The elevator frequently jerked, made noise, got stuck between floors, had faulty doors and a non-functional fan. It lacked essential safety features like a stabiliser and emergency contact details.
On April 14, 2023, a technician visited to fix the sound issue, but the problem persisted. Despite multiple complaints, a legal notice on June 23, 2023, and a third-party inspection by SHS Elevator Services, which found severe defects, the company refused to act. Left with no choice, Narasimha filed a complaint with the consumer forum on June 25, 2024, citing gross negligence and unfair trade practices.
The representatives of the firm appeared before the commission but failed to submit their version or affidavit despite being given ample time. After going through the documents, the commission observed that when issued a legal notice, the company replied. The company then sent a letter stating that all elevator services would be on hold until legal issues were resolved and disclaiming responsibility for any accidents or malfunctions.
‘Unfair trade practice’
The commission noted the company, even after receiving money, halted work, clearly disclosing a deficiency of service and negligence. The firm’s inefficiency in getting the safety verification caused suffering for the family. The defect identified by the SHS Elevator Services also disclosed that the work was not done correctly, exposing the family to life dangers. “It is the duty of the company to cure the defects and hand over the elevator to the customer after the final verification for safety measures. They cannot leave the work incomplete and without doing safety verification by exposing life to a dangerous situation, which amounts to unfair trade practice,” the commission said.
The commission ordered the firm to set right the defects in the elevator. In case of failure, they must replace the defective piece with a new one or refund the entire amount with interest at 9%.
Bengaluru: A city advocate, who was left struggling with defective installation of a lift at his new residence, took a Bengaluru-based lift maker to court recently.
The Bengaluru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered Unosafe Elevator to fix the machine, replace it or refund the customer Rs 7.7 lakh and pay him Rs 1 lakh as compensation, and Rs 20,000 as litigation costs.
Advocate Narasimhaiah K, 60, constructed a three-floor duplex residential building in Chandra Layout and wanted an elevator for it. Unosafe Elevator’s sales representatives approached him and offered to install it. Trusting the company and its assurance of a hassle-free elevator and long-term warranty with 24/7 service, Narasimhaiah purchased the elevator for Rs 7.4 lakh, inclusive of 18% GST, and signed an agreement on Oct 8, 2021.
He paid an advance of Rs 74,000 via cheque for the elevator, unaware of the troubles ahead. The company neither supplied the materials initially nor clarified the payment structure. Later, he was asked to pay in three stages, with materials provided after the first payment. After paying through the third stage, materials were supplied, and installation began. Despite paying an additional Rs 30,000 for a luxury cabin, the company delayed the installation, forcing him to postpone his housewarming ceremony twice.
Even after the installation, the elevator was defective, smaller than agreed and of lesser capacity than had been promised. Narasimhaiah alleged that the company used substandard materials, including a weak, non-branded hoist cable posing safety risks. Instead of a branded MONA motor, it had installed a second-hand one. The elevator frequently jerked, made noise, got stuck between floors, had faulty doors and a non-functional fan. It lacked essential safety features like a stabiliser and emergency contact details.
On April 14, 2023, a technician visited to fix the sound issue, but the problem persisted. Despite multiple complaints, a legal notice on June 23, 2023, and a third-party inspection by SHS Elevator Services, which found severe defects, the company refused to act. Left with no choice, Narasimha filed a complaint with the consumer forum on June 25, 2024, citing gross negligence and unfair trade practices.
The representatives of the firm appeared before the commission but failed to submit their version or affidavit despite being given ample time. After going through the documents, the commission observed that when issued a legal notice, the company replied. The company then sent a letter stating that all elevator services would be on hold until legal issues were resolved and disclaiming responsibility for any accidents or malfunctions.
‘Unfair trade practice’
The commission noted the company, even after receiving money, halted work, clearly disclosing a deficiency of service and negligence. The firm’s inefficiency in getting the safety verification caused suffering for the family. The defect identified by the SHS Elevator Services also disclosed that the work was not done correctly, exposing the family to life dangers. “It is the duty of the company to cure the defects and hand over the elevator to the customer after the final verification for safety measures. They cannot leave the work incomplete and without doing safety verification by exposing life to a dangerous situation, which amounts to unfair trade practice,” the commission said.
The commission ordered the firm to set right the defects in the elevator. In case of failure, they must replace the defective piece with a new one or refund the entire amount with interest at 9%.