COMPONENT A: CONSUMER COMPLAINT DRAFTING
BEFORE THE HON’BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADHYA PRADESH STATE, INDORE.
[Complaint under Section – 47, Consumer Protection Act 2019 as per the
Consumer Protection Rules 2021 Section 47(1)(a)(i)]
IN THE MATTER OF:
Name: Siya Jain
Residence: 24, Vijay Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, 452001
Mobile No. : + 91 8717900475
E- Mail Address: siyajain03@gmail.com
.................... COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Name: Shukla Automobiles
Residence: 51, BCM Heights, Rajendra Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, 452001
Mobile No: +91 5526678231
E- Mail Address: shuklaautomobiles@gmail.com
.................... OPPOSITE PARTY
Consumer complaint number 550/2025
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019
“The complainants/ complainant most respectfully states or state as under”
Page | 1
INTRODUCTION
• The complainant, Ms. Siya Jain, is a resident of India presently residing at 24, Vijay Nagar,
Indore, Madhya Pradesh, 452001. The opposing party is Shukla Automobiles, a registered
appliance dealer and service provider, located at 51, BCM Heights, Rajendra Nagar,
Indore, Madhya Pradesh, 452001. The jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission is duly
attracted as the transaction and the cause of action originated within the territorial
boundaries of Madhya Pradesh state.
• On 1st April, 2025, the complainant purchased a commercial-grade refrigerator motor
from the opposite party for installation in her custom high-capacity refrigerator unit. The
motor was advertised and sold as a premium component suitable for heavy-duty usage.
However, the complainant soon encountered significant operational issues, and the lack
of adequate support and negligent service from the opposite party resulted in financial
loss and damage to surrounding property.
CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Duty of Care and Deficiency in Services
● As a service provider and retailer, Shukla Automobiles owed a duty of care
towards the complainant, Ms. Siya Jain.
● The respondent did not provide services and goods of “acceptable quality” in line
with the consumer law applicable at the time. It was confirmed that the motor was
defective, as it started malfunctioning within a month.
Page | 2
● False representations were made about the product quality and information
essential and relevant to the performance background were concealed by the
opposition party.
● The complainant has incurred financial losses and mental misery due to the fault
of the opposite party.
● These acts constitute not only a flagrant violation of the obligation of care but are
also a clear shortcoming in the service of the petitioners as defined under the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
● The complainant has legal recourse for defective goods and deficient service under
Section 2(10) (definition of defect) and Section 1(34) (right to seek redressal)
● Hence, the complainant-day seeks intervention and relief from the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
TRANSACTION DETAILS
1. PRICE OF GOODS AND SERVICES:
Cost of Refrigerator Motor: INR 70,00,000
(Total cost paid by the complainant to Shukla Automobiles)
Cost of Installation and Maintenance Costs: INR 12,00,000
(Covers installation, site visits, and maintenance efforts undertaken by the complainant)
2. LEGAL EXPENSES: INR 40,000
(Legal costs incurred for filing the complaint and seeking relief)
3. INVOICE DETAILS:
Page | 3
Invoice Number: SA-24-21-903
Date of Invoice: 1st April 2025
Seller: Shukla Automobiles
Seller's Address: 51, BCM Heights, Rajendra Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, 452001
Buyer: Ms. Siya Jain
Buyer's Address: 24, Vijay Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, 452001
Description of Goods: High-Capacity Refrigerator Motor
Total Amount: INR 70,00,000
4. DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE BY COMPLAINANT (CHEQUE NUMBER/
CASH, ETC.)
Reference No.:- SHAUTO389A
PRN: - 999333666
Debit Account No. : 108828411234
Amount: INR 70,00,000
Amount in words: Seventy lakh rupees
Status: Completed successfully
Debit Branch: CICIC Bank Ltd.
Date-Time: 01-April-2025 10:07 IST
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
The instant complaint is based on a blatant deficiency in services and defective goods provided by
the Opposite Party, Shukla Automobiles, pertaining to the refrigerator motor purchased by the
complainant.
Although the motor was promised as a high-grade item to be fit for heavy-duty refrigeration in
commercial use, the product began to show problems of heating, power fluctuations, non-uniform
cooling effects and an unusual noise within two weeks of being installed. On complaining about
Page | 4
the issue, the Opposite Party responded only after delays and evasive conduct to not provide
service.
DEFENSE:
• Violation of Duty of Care: The Opposite Party failed in their professional duty by
installing a defective motor and not responding promptly to the complainant’s repeated
service requests.
• Misrepresentation: The Opposite Party falsely represented the motor to be of "export-
grade quality", and suitable for continuous commercial use, despite it being low-quality
and untested.
• Negligent Installation: The installation was done without adequate inspection, and
without proper surge protection or compatibility checks with the refrigerator system,
leading directly to the fire incident.
• Attempts to Settle: The Complainant made several good-faith attempts to amicably
resolve the matter by contacting the seller through email, phone, and in person—none of
which yielded proper redressal.
LIMITATION PERIOD
● According to the “CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2019”, the statutory limitation for
filing a complaint is two years from the date on which the cause of action arose.
● Since the product was purchased on 1st April 2025, the complaint filed in April 2025 falls
well within the limitation period, making it valid and maintainable.
JURISDICTION
The total monetary value of the claim—comprising product price, installation cost, property
damages, legal costs, and compensation—amounts to ₹82,40,000, which exceeds ₹50 lakhs but is
below ₹2 crores.
Page | 5
Hence, as per Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, read with the
Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the Commissions) Rules, 2021, the matter falls within
the jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh.
Additionally, the territorial jurisdiction is established since both parties reside and the
transaction occurred within Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINANT THAT HE HAS NOT FILED ANY
COMPLAINT IN ANY OTHER COURT/TRIBUNAL/COMMISSION
REGARDING THIS COMPLAINT
I, Siya Jain, the Complainant, state that I have not filed any complaint in any other
court/tribunal/commission regarding this complaint.
DATED: 01.04.2025
PLACE: Indore Name & Signature of Complainant
Siya Jain
Siya
PRAYER
In consideration of the facts and the violations of the “Consumer Protection Act, 2019”, the
Complainant, Ms. Siya Jain, respectfully prays for the following relief from the Honorable
Commission:
i. REFUND: Direct the Opposite Party to refund ₹82,00,000, the full purchase price of the
faulty refrigerator motor, and the installation and maintenance cost.
ii. LEGAL EXPENSES: Reimburse ₹40,000 for legal fees and documentation expenses incurred
in filing the complaint.
Page | 6
iii. PUNITIVE DAMAGES: Impose punitive damages upon the Opposite Party, in an amount
deemed fit by this Hon’ble Commission, to deter future negligence and unethical trade
practices.
iv. Pass any other order(s) that this Hon’ble Commission deems appropriate in the interest of
justice, equity, and good conscience.
The Complainant humbly requests this Honorable Commission to expedite the proceedings and
provide a fair and just resolution in accordance with the law.
PLACE: SIGNATURE:
Indore, Madhya Pradesh
State Siya
DATED: NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT:
15/04/2025 Siya Jain
VERIFICATION
I Siya Jain, resident of (24, Vijay Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, 452001) hereby declare
that I have not misrepresented any facts nor have tried to hide any information in my
above complaint. All the facts mentioned herein are true to the best of my knowledge.
Siya Jain
𝒮𝒾ya Jain
Name & signature of the complainant
Please note: The affidavit should be notarized before further copies of the complaint set are made
for submission.
Arrangement of the complaint papers:
All papers to be kept in paper file in following order:
Page | 7
1. Complaint
2. Affidavit
3. Aadhar Card
4. Photocopy of all cheques for making payments
5. Ultrasound reports
6. Vakalatnama
7. Certificate of pleader’s fees
Page | 8
ANNEXURE 1 (INVOICE)
Page | 9
ANNEXURE 2 (CHEQUE DETAILS)
Page | 10
COMPONENT B: REPORT ON VISIT TO CONSUMER COURT
Page | 11
As part of our internal assignment for the subject Law of Torts, I had the opportunity to visit the
District Consumer Commission in Pune, Maharashtra on 7th April 2025. This was part of
visitation to witness the grievance redressal system under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and
to know the law in practice.
As someone who transitioned from the structured environment of a classroom — where we
diligently read cases and legal provisions for hours on end — this was a refreshing and eye-opening
experience. Observing the Commission in action gave me an understanding of the nuances of
procedural law and the difficulties of applying consumer rights in real-world situations.
I was once fortunate enough to visit the Court at work and witnessed the hearings for a very
interesting case between Mr. Gautam Shinde (the complainant) and a local real-estate builder. The
conflict had involved Mr. Shinde paying an amount of ₹5,70,000 as an advance to the builder for
a residential flat. As per the law and the Consumer Protection Act— the builder is obliged to
register the sale agreement and give formal documentation when the home owner has paid 15% or
more of the property’s value.
But in this case, even after the advance payment was made, the builder had not provided any legal
papers to you. Mr. Tiwari wrote to Mr. Shinde, expressing his willingness to pay the balance, but
the latter never responded. A legal notice from his advocate afterwards too went unanswered. This
led Mr. Shinde to finally file a case with the District Consumer Commission, seeking either the
complete registration and possession of the flat with all promised amenities — or, failing that, a
full refund with 18% interest from the date of payment.
When I first saw the case, it was already at the argument stage. It was a modest courtroom —
more like a large office than what you might think of as a courtroom — but functional and
welcoming. The presiding officer, a retired district judge, ran the proceedings with a dignified and
fair demeanor that managed to balance formal judicial decorum with accessibility to the general
public.
Page | 12
The complainant’s lawyer laid out the case methodically. He guided the Commission through a
timeline of events -- pointing to payment, communication, and a failure to file legal response. He
filed documentary evidence including receipts, bank statements and a copy of the legal notice. A
variety of documents were provided with short explanations of how each one helped the
Commission understand the broader context.
The builder’s lawyer attempted a defense that the amount paid was a mere “token” or informal
booking sum. But the Commission seemed skeptical, especially because the builder did not
provide any written communication or effort to provide a refund. The presiding officer noted that
there was no legal obligation on the builder’s side and showed concern about retaining such a
significant amount without following the prescribed legal requirements.
The Commission, thus, provided the builder with another chance to either suggest a settlement or
face the looming threat of an ex-parte order to be passed in the next hearing. This brief moment
underlined the Commission’s patient but authoritative approach — giving both sides a fair crack
at it, but also putting the interest of the consumer at the center of the issue.
I then also had a very brief but fortunate interaction after the proceedings with Advocate S. R.
Deshmukh appearing for Mr. Shinde. He was extremely generous with his time and permitted us
to peruse the entire case file — the complaint, the annexures, the legal notices and the procedural
forms. And not only did he demystify the legal language, he explained how consumer forums
function under Section 35 of the Act, making the process fairly simple and consumer-oriented.
He also took a moment to recall stories of past clients, telling us that consumer forums often deal
with the complaints of people who are unaware of their rights. He asked us, all of us to be future
legal professionals, to take these forums seriously and to use one to promote justice at the
grassroots level.
It’s also more than a course visit and experience, it was a master’s experience which I reflected
over it again and again. It made me understand how the law applies in real life, gave me a lesson
in how critical clarity is in legal drafting, and showed me the real value of legal aid and consumer
empowerment. More than that though, it reinforced my conviction that lawyers have a critical role
Page | 13
to play not only in the interpretation of the law, but also in its application, especially for those who
stand to benefit the most from it.
I walked away from the experience with an enhanced understanding of consumer rights and a
blossoming sense of social responsibility to be informed, to educate others, and to speak up for
what I feel is right, just, and fair in every professional position that I assume.
Page | 14
Page | 15
