Court Rules: Shopkeeper to Pay Double for Selling Substandard Furniture

A woman filed a complaint with the Consumer Commission after a rocking chair she ordered online developed cracks. The Commission ordered the manufacturer, seller, and platform to pay a total of ₹37,768.

A wooden rocking chair purchased online for her elderly parents deteriorated within just a few months. After cracks appeared in the wooden parts of the chair, the woman complained to the online platform; when no resolution was found, the matter reached the Consumer Commission. The Commission has now ruled in the woman's favor, ordering a total payment of ₹37,768.

The case pertains to the Warangal District Consumer Commission. The complainant is a 29-year-old woman who is a lawyer by profession. In October 2025, she purchased a Sheesham wood rocking chair for her elderly parents from an online platform for ₹12,768. She made the purchase based on claims regarding the product's quality and durability.

Cracks Appeared in the Chair Within Months

According to the woman, multiple cracks began to appear in the wooden joints of the chair during normal household use. This weakened the chair and raised safety concerns regarding its use.

She subsequently contacted the seller and the online shopping platform. The woman shared photos and videos of the defective chair and demanded a replacement, repair, or a refund. However, she did not receive an effective solution. She then sent a legal notice and filed a complaint with the Consumer Commission.

Assurance of Repair Not Fulfilled

During the hearing, the Commission noted that neither the manufacturer nor the seller had filed a written response within the stipulated time. Meanwhile, the manufacturer had informed the woman via WhatsApp that the chair would be repaired at her home and that the concerned parties would bear the cost. However, the complainant did not receive effective relief.

Commission Awards Compensation of ₹37,768

The Warangal District Consumer Commission ruled that supplying a defective product and subsequently failing to provide an appropriate resolution constitutes a deficiency in service. The Commission directed the manufacturer, the seller, and the online marketplace to jointly refund the purchase amount of ₹12,768 to the woman. Additionally, they were ordered to pay ₹20,000 for mental agony and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs, bringing the total amount to ₹37,768. Compliance with the order has been mandated within 45 days.

The key takeaway from this report is that the Consumer Commission secured compensation for the customer—covering the purchase price as well as damages for mental agony and legal expenses—after she received a defective product and failed to get a proper resolution despite lodging a complaint.