State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kodudhala Joji Reddy vs Managing Director, Ikea India Private ... on 9 April, 2026
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.623 OF 2022 AGAINST ORDERS IN
CC.NO.663 OF 2021, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I,
HYDERABAD
Between:
Kodudhala Joji Reddy, S/o.Late K.Balakonda Reddy,
Aged 73 years, Occ: Advocate & Retired Govt. Servant,
R/o.22, Indrapuri Railway Colony,
West Marredpally, Secunderabad - 500 026.
......Appellant/Complainant
And
1.Managing Director, IKEA India Private Ltd., Plot No.25, 26 (P) and 29 (P), Hitech Main Road, Mindspace Junction, Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District - 500 081.
2. Deputy Managing Director, IKEA India Private Ltd., Plot No.25, 26 (P) and 29 (P), Hitech Main Road, Mindspace Junction, Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District - 500 081.
......Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: Party-in-Person Counsel for the Respondents/Opp.Parties: Sri Sanjay Kishore QUORAM:
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI ......PRESIDENT HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN ......MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL) THURSDAY, THE 9th DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX ****** Order: (Per Smt.Dr.G.Radha Rani, Hon'ble President)
1. This appeal is filed by the Complainant aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad dated 12.07.2022 in CC.No.663 of 2021.2
2. (a) The case of the Complainant was that, he was a retired I.R.T.S. Officer and a practicing Advocate since his retirement in 2009. He also acted as the standing counsel for Railways from 2010 to 2019. On seeing an advertisement in the internet for sale of one APPLARO sun lounger and cushion, he contacted the customer service desk of IKEA to enquire about the said product and procedure to purchase the same. After checking the availability of the said items in Hyderabad store of IKEA, they had sent an email stating that a ticket was created with his service request and that it would be reviewed by their support agent and a response would be sent shortly and mentioned that the articles would be delivered on 16.06.2021.
But he neither received the articles mentioned in his order on 16.06.2021 nor was there any communication from IKEA regarding his transaction with them thereafter. When he sent a mail after a lapse of nearly two weeks, they informed him on 17.06.2021 and 27.06.2021 that his mail was blocked. No action was taken on his issue. It was a clear case of negligence and deficiency of service on the part of IKEA, Hyderabad. In their mail dated 17.06.2021, it was clearly mentioned about non-delivery of sun lounger APPLARO. The above item scheduled for delivery on 16.06.2021 was not materialized so far. It was a case of their acknowledgement of failure to deliver his order on 16.06.2021 which would amount to deficiency of service. Only when the Complainant, a 72 year old person physically visited IKEA about 30 kms in the rain from his residence and when he demanded the concerned Supervisor for the issue of a money receipt for the amount paid, he avoided stating that there was some problem in the machine and insisted on the consumer to take refund of the amount paid. When he refused to take refund of the amount, they forcibly sent the money to his bank account on 10.07.2021 by electronic transfer which he acknowledged as "under protest". He insisted on them to arrange delivery of his articles booked by their order No.177996421 soon. His request was successfully registered with service request No.465933 dated 10.07.2021 assuring that they would resolve and revert at the earliest. Even afterwards, when nothing was forthcoming 3 from IKEA, he sent a legal notice to the postal address of IKEA at Raidurg demanding delivery of the articles booked under his order, but the same was returned wantonly stamped as "insufficient address". Subsequently, on 17.06.2021, he sent legal notice to IKEA by mail as an attachment to a covering letter which was delivered promptly to them to arrange delivery of the articles booked by him under Order No.177996421. On 19.07.2021, he asked IKEA to check availability of the booked articles and inform him.
(b) On 26.10.2021, he requested the customer care to place order on his behalf and inform him as insisted by them inspite of his arguing that he already placed order No.177996421. On 26.10.2021, he received a mail from IKEA, Hyderabad stating that the article sun lounger and beige was in stock and the article APPLARO sun lounger brown stained was likely to be in stock on 22.11.2021 and that they would be placing a new order on the same order and would share with him the new order delivery details. On 31.08.2021, he received another mail stating that the articles were likely to come in stock during the third week of September. He received another mail stating that APPLARO sun lounger was now in stock at Hyderabad and Bangalore (online) as on 19.07.2021. On 26.10.2021, he received a mail stating that the two articles were most likely to be in stock on 22.11.2021. Again on 25.10.2021, he advised IKEA to place order. On 29th August, he sent a legal notice as an attachment. On 09.06.2021, after checking the availability of the said two articles, he placed order No.177996421 and sent money towards the cost of the two articles and transportation charges. But IKEA failed to deliver the said articles and arrange home delivery. On 29.10.2021, he received a mail from the customer care India stating that they are in receipt of his mail and that they would respond within two business days, but failed to deliver the articles booked by him. As such, considering it as deficiency of service, the 4 Complainant lodged the Consumer Complaint to direct the Opposite Party Company:
(1) To deliver the two articles booked under order No.177996421 to the Complainant on collection of Rs.12,979/- being the cost of APPLARO sun lounger along with the corresponding cushions. (2) To award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the complaint and other charges.
(3) To award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing physical and mental agony.
(4) To pass such other orders as may deem fit and right.
3. (a) The Opposite Parties filed written version submitting that they were a single brand retail entity engaged in the business of furniture and other home furnishing products. They provide for a shopping experience in their store and through the online mode. Along with the shopping experience, the Opposite Parties provide customer service through the Customer Service Centre for all the customers to reach out to IKEA for any query regarding the products. The customers can shop through their online website or through the CSC help desk via telephone, wherein the availability of the requested articles in stock is confirmed and if the requested articles were available in stock, the customers were provided with an email link for payment request upon selection of the products which shall be valid for twenty four hours. For these twenty four hours, the requested article would be blocked for the particular customer. The transaction gets automatically cancelled if the payment was delayed beyond the said twenty four hour window and the blocked article would be released for sale to other customers.
(b) They further submitted that the Complainant placed an order through the inbound contact from CSC on 04.06.2021 and on 06.06.2021, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Parties to amend the order dated 04.06.2021 to add some more articles to the order. The CSC team helped 5 the Complainant by transferring the concerns to the CSC co-worker. The Complainant was informed that the articles desired to be added on the order dated 04.06.2021 were unavailable and the Complainant was informed that the order for the additional articles would be confirmed on 09.06.2021 upon payment through the payment request ID generated by the Opposite Parties. The co-worker of the CSC team placed an order for the articles on 09.06.2021 and the payment request ID was shared on the same date. However, the payment was not made within the twenty four hour window provided, but was made only on 12.06.2021, by which time the order was already automatically cancelled. Thereafter, on 10.07.2021, the Complainant visited the store of Opposite Parties and inquired about the cancelled order and it was duly informed to him that the order was cancelled as the payment was not completed within twenty four hours of the receipt of the payment window. The Complainant was further informed that the articles were not in stock and was advised to select an article from a range of available articles. However, the Complainant insisted upon purchasing the particular article and accepted to receive refund of the payment and to place a fresh order once the articles were in stock. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties on 10.07.2021 itself processed the refund for the whole amount paid by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties informed the Complainant about the non-availability of the articles when the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for re-ordering of the articles. To facilitate with the needs of the customer, the Opposite Parties advised the Complainant to select an article from the range of alternative articles available in stock. However, the Complainant insisted on waiting for the articles which were out of stock. The Opposite Parties informed the Complainant once the articles were in stock on 26.11.2021, however, the Complainant did not revert on the same.
(c) They further submitted that the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to place an order for the articles on 29.10.2021. The Opposite Parties informed the Complainant about the estimated date of 6 the stock being available as 22.11.2021 vide email dated 26.10.2021. However, despite the same, the Complainant on 29.10.2021 sent an email to the Opposite Parties insisting that an order be placed for the articles that he wanted. Thereafter, knowing fully well that the articles would be back in stock only after 22.11.2021, the Complainant proceeded to file the instant complaint on 11.11.2021 itself. It would demonstrate that the present complaint was an attempt towards a chance litigation to unjustly enrich himself at the cost of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties were informing the Complainant of the expected availability of the articles regularly and thereafter on 26.11.2021, the Opposite Parties communicated vide email to the Complainant of the availability of the articles in stock. However, the Complainant did not respond and instead filed the complaint which was vexatious, improper and untenable. As such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed in limini and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. The Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A17. The authorized signatory of the Opposite Parties also filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.B1, the authorization letter.
5. Considering the material on record, the District Commission observed that the refund was made after more than three weeks and that too after the Complainant personally visited their store and that he was misled by the subsequent emails of the Opposite Parties making the virtual shopping experience of the Complainant with the Opposite Parties unsatisfactory, as such, considered that the Complainant was entitled for reasonable compensation for the loss and inconvenience caused to him owing to the poor customer service of the Opposite Parties and allowed the complaint in part and directed the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and legal expenses within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
76. Aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant preferred this appeal contending that:
Though the District Commission answered the points in his favour, erred in directing the Opposite Parties to pay a meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- only towards both the claims of the Complainant for compensation and also the legal expenses.
The District Commission erred in combining the compensation aspect along with the legal expenses while awarding a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/-. While awarding the legal expenses, the District Commission erred in not taking into account the legal fees prescribed by the Advocate Fee Rules prescribed by the Government, the cost of stationery, the amount of physical and mental strain and also the costs of transportation in attending the court on prescribed dates;
and prayed to order the Opposite Parties:
(i) to home deliver the two articles as per the order No.177995421 dated 09.06.2021 on payment of Rs.12,975/- by the Complainant,
(ii) to order the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses,
(iii) to order the Opposite Parties to pay an exemplary compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the physical, mental and other sufferings of the Complainant resulting in loss of health of the Complainant and prayed to protect the rights of the consumers and to modify the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad in CC.No.663/2021 dated 12.07.2022.
7. After admitting the appeal, the Complainant appeared only once and subsequently failed to appear. He failed to submit his submissions. Considering that the appeal is of the year 2022, this Forum decided to 8 dispose of the same on merits. The counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 submitted his arguments.
8. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the order passed by the District Commission needs any modification?
9. Point :
As seen from the record, the Complainant placed an order online for an APPLARO sun lounger and cushion on 09.06.2021 by paying an amount of Rs.12,979/- including transport charges and home delivery. But the payment was made on 16.06.2021. It was the contention of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant's order No.177996421 dated 09.06.2021 was cancelled due to non-payment of the amount of Rs.12,979/- within 24 hours of the receipt of payment request ID and the amount was refunded on 10.07.2021. Admittedly, the amount was refunded only after the Complainant visited the store of the Opposite Parties in Hyderabad on 10.07.2021. The Complainant accepted the refund under protest and requested for delivery of the product. Thereafter, there were several emails addressed between the parties wherein the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to place an order for the above items and the Opposite Parties reported about the non-availability of the same and that the stock would likely to come on various dates. The District Commission observing that the Opposite Parties not only failed to deliver the goods ordered by the Complainant, but did not refund the money within 14 days as per the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020 considered it as deficiency of service. Under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020, E-Commerce entities are required to provide transparent and fair terms of sales, avoid arbitrary cancellation of orders, ensure timely refund of payment and not adopt unfair trade practices. But in the present case, the cancellation was based on a twenty four hour condition which was not clearly communicated to the 9 Complainant. The refund was unduly delayed and was not refunded within 14 days as per the rules. The Opposite Party gave assurances regarding future supply but failed to act upon them. This conduct reflects lack of transparency, failure to adhere to fair business transactions, amounting to deficiency in service.
10. The Opposite Parties not filed any appeal against this order. The Complainant preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation and for specific performance for delivery of the very same articles for which he placed order. Granting of specific performance of goods would be dependant on the availability of goods and the nature of goods whether they were ordinary or unique and about the practical feasibility. There was no clear proof of the current availability of the said goods in the store of the Respondent. Therefore, a mandatory direction to deliver the same product cannot be given. This Forum cannot give a direction which was uncertain in execution or require continuous supervision. As such, the prayer for delivery of the very same products cannot be granted.
11. With regard to the enhancement of compensation, the District Commission awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and legal expenses. However, the following aspects need to be taken into consideration. The Opposite Party accepted the consideration but failed to deliver the product and the refund was made after an unreasonable delay and the Complainant was compelled to pursue the matter repeatedly. The Opposite Party gave assurances regarding future availability, but failed to honour the same. The said conduct clearly amounts to deficiency in service. As it caused mental agony, inconvenience and harassment to the Complainant, the Complainant was entitled for compensation. The compensation awarded by the District Commission in inadequate and is not commensurate with the nature of deficiency. However, at the same time, the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- made by the Complainant is excessive 10 having regard to the nature of transaction and in the absence of substantial pecuniary loss to the Complainant. As such, we consider that the ends of justice would be met by enhancing the compensation to a reasonable extent.
12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Commission is modified as follows:
(i) The compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the District Commission is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony, inconvenience and deficiency in service.
(ii) The Respondents/Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.10,000/-
towards litigation costs.
(iii) The prayer for delivery of the product is rejected.
(iv) The above amounts shall be paid within four weeks, failing which they shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.
(v) No order as to further costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Court on this the 9th day of April,2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER-NJ
Dt: 09.04.2026
UC*