The Palakkad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a plant boutique to refund a buyer and pay damages after the business failed to deliver dozens of ordered orchids or return her money.
The commission, consisting of President Vinay Menon V and members Vidya A and Krishnankutty, ruled that Ummiyaaz Plants Boutique committed a deficiency in service. The order requires the business to return the customer’s payment of Rs 2,105 along with 10 percent interest calculated from January 18, 2024. Additionally, the boutique must pay Rs 3,000 in compensation for mental agony and Rs 2,500 to cover litigation costs.
Under the terms of the ruling, the boutique has 45 days to clear the payment. Should the business fail to meet this deadline, it will be liable to pay an ongoing penalty of Rs 500 per month until the amount is fully resolved.
Repeated Delays And Broken Promises
The dispute began on January 18, 2024, when the customer placed an order for 80 orchid plants at a rate of Rs 25 per plant after watching a YouTube video posted by the boutique. Although she completed a payment of Rs 2,105 under the assurance of delivery within seven working days, the plants never arrived.
When contacted a week later, representatives of the boutique cited an ongoing strike for the delay, promising delivery as soon as possible. Later, the business notified her that the plants were out of stock and requested her banking details to process a refund.
However, the boutique subsequently messaged her stating that new stock would become available and proposed a new delivery date of April 2, 2024. Having already purchased pots for the orchids, the buyer agreed to wait rather than receive a refund. When the boutique failed to deliver on April 2 and ignored subsequent refund requests, the buyer was left with no response.
Discrepancies And Uncontested Claims
In October, the customer discovered that the boutique was advertising the same orchid plants on YouTube at an increased rate of Rs 50 per plant, using a new contact number. Upon her inquiry, the boutique agreed on October 25 to honor her original booking rate.
The situation deteriorated in November when the boutique published an online list of customers with pending orders. The post included the complainant’s name but inaccurately recorded her order as 40 plants instead of 80. By December, a newly updated list omitted her name entirely, and further communication attempts by the customer were ignored.
In its June 29 order, the commission noted that the boutique failed to appear or submit a response to the complaints. Because the boutique left the allegations unchallenged, the panel accepted the complainant’s evidence, concluding that the firm’s failure to deliver the plants or issue a refund caused the customer significant distress and financial loss.
