The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Kalyan Silks’ Vastalaya to compensate Rs 75,040 for refusing to replace silk saris with defects, marking a pivotal moment for consumer rights
The verdict was passed by the Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising president DB Binu and members V Ramachandran and Sreevidhia TN, on a petition filed by Sarah Thomas of Changanassery. The complainant had bought two bridal saris for her daughter from a textile showroom in Ernakulam on January 12, 2018, for Rs 30,040. However, they were never worn as the wedding was later called off. As per the complainant, she noticed black shades on one of the saris on January 23, 2019, despite regularly airing them for preservation. The complainant alleged that the retailer initially promised a replacement, but later returned the defective sari without replacing it.
The Commission directed Kalyan Silks’ Vastalaya to pay Rs 25,000, the cost of the sari, as well as Rs 20,000 as court expenses to the complainant within 30 days.
The complainant contended that the sari’s damage was due to material and manufacturing defects and accused the retailer of using unfair and deceptive trade practices, along with service deficiencies which had caused her severe mental agony, loss and hardship. Kalyan Silk, however, countered the claim, asserting that the sari belonged to the complainant’s daughter, not the plaintiff. It further argued that the alleged defects resulted from storing the sari in an airtight box for an extended period rather than any manufacturing flaw. The retailer further submitted that the sari was packed in a velvet box at the time of purchase and the complainant’s daughter was warned that keeping the sari in such a box could cause damage. The retailer also contended that any damage was likely due to the product being stored in an airtight box for an extended period and it was free from manufacturing defects.
The Commission, while invoking the new Consumer Protection Act, shifted the burden of caution from the consumer to the seller, emphasizing a shift in consumer rights. The ruling underscored vendors’ need to offer explicit guidance on product care, ensuring consumers are well-informed and protected. “The absence of such guidance makes it unjust to hold the consumer responsible for any supposed non-compliance. In conclusion, the retailer’s failure to provide explicit care instructions led to supporting the consumer’s complaint. This situation highlights the need for clear communication between retailers and consumers to prevent misunderstandings and ensure the protection of consumer rights,” the Commission said.
The Commission cited a landmark decision by the Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that decided that sellers bear the responsibility for damage to goods unless it is proven that the purchaser caused the damage. “This shift from the traditional principle of ‘caveat emptor’ to ‘caveat venditor’ indicates a significant advancement in consumer protection laws, aligning with contemporary needs and ethical business practices,” observed the Commission.
In a similar case, selling a damaged sari cost a shop dear as a district consumer forum directed it to pay Rs 25,000 to the buyer as well as give a new sari. The complainant, B Naveen Kumar, had gone with his family to Chennai Shopping Mall and bought three saris on November 7, 2020. But, when it was worn by his wife during a function, she found that it was torn and threads had come out from the border. When they sought an exchange or refund, the shop offered to repair it and handed it back in a few days. When Kumar’s wife wore the same sari at another family function, he said that it was torn again and stitches came out at multiple places near the sari’s pattu border. Once again, Kumar approached the shop for an exchange or refund. He was offered half the cost of the sari, which Kumar said he rejected.
As the shop kept dragging the issue, he filed a complaint with the consumer forum. During the trial, the bench noticed that the shop had issued an “allow slip” after receiving the damaged sari. “From the photographs, it is apparent that the tear is not due to mishandling or negligence as it is seen at multiple places of the pattu border,” said the bench and added that they were liable to pay the cost of the sari along with compensation as they sold sub-standard goods to the complainant.
Last month, a Consumer Commission in Telangana ordered electric scooter manufacturer Benling India and its dealer to pay a sum of Rs 10 lakh as compensation to the owner of an e-scooter that had caught fire. The complainant had purchased a Benling electric scooter in April 2021. It is said to have caught fire in February last year after its battery exploded. The owner asked the company to either replace the scooter or refund the original price of the scooter along with 18% interest per annum. However, neither Benling India nor its dealer responded to him despite filing a complaint. Hence, the owner decided to approach the consumer court and sought compensation of Rs 13.5 lakh and Rs 40,000 in legal expenses.
Notices sent to Benling India by the Consumer Commission went unanswered. The Commission noted that the manufacturer had failed to identify the cause of the incident. It also held the company liable for the defective product under the Consumer Protection Act.
Last year, after Xiaomi India was held guilty of unfair trade practice, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, had directed the firm to pay Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant, Himanshu Sharma. Filing a complaint against Xiaomi India, Bengaluru, and others, Sharma had submitted that he bought a TV in December 2018. In July 2021, it suddenly turned off, following which he approached the company that changed the TV’s power supply after finding it defective. Sharma was told that since the warranty period had expired, he will have to pay over Rs 3,000 for the replaced part.
Sharma said he made the payment, but the TV turned off again after a couple of days. It was repaired again, but still did not work. The engineers then told him that there might be fault in the motherboard and to confirm this fact, he will have to pay Rs 11,000 in advance for diagnosis. When Sharma asked for free service, they refused, after which he approached the consumer court.
In response, the company claimed that the complainant had failed to provide any substantial evidence, as required under the law, that the alleged defects in the product were caused by a manufacturing defect. It alleged that had there been any manufacturing defect, he would not have been able to use the product for such a long period without any issue. Also, the warranty period is only one year, so he cannot demand free repair services after over two years of purchase.
However, the Commission observed, “Once the repairs were carried out on payment basis, the TV was expected to function properly at least for a reasonable period of six months. Due to non-functioning of TV within a period of 10 days after carrying out necessary repairs, the opposition party (company) is found to have not repaired the TV properly to the satisfaction of this Commission and by demanding of Rs 10,000 more, within a period of 10 days of repair, the company has indulged in unfair trade practice.” The shift from caveat emptor to caveat venditor is a welcome one.
—By Abhilash Kumar Singh and India Legal Bureau