The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered a sports, leisure and recreation infrastructure development company to pay a compensation of ₹25.90 lakh for failure to lay artificial turf of promised quality and certification.
The Commission comprising president D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. issued the order on a petition filed by Santhosh M.S. of Chottanikkara against The Sports Terrain at Aikkaranadu. The petitioner who operates a football academy and ground at Chottanikkara accused the company of failure to install FIFA-certified artificial turf as promised.
The petitioner who runs the academy on rented premises claimed to have paid ₹25.04 lakh by mortgaging his home to install the turf in 2019. However, the turf reportedly got damaged quickly and was found to be of a local brand rather than the FIFA-certified one. It led to injuries to children at the academy, the petitioner alleged.
Reportedly, the damaged turf was again replaced with local turf without matching FIFA standards and proper drainage system requirements leading to further financial losses and mental stress for which the complainant demanded a compensation of ₹30,44 lakh.
“The supplier’s conduct in failing to deliver the promised product and service, coupled with their lack of response to legal notices, amounts to a blatant disregard for consumer rights and is indicative of negligence and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them,” the Commission observed.
Consequently, the Commission ordered that the company refund ₹25.04 lakh the petitioner had paid for the installation of the artificial turf, ₹75,000 towards compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience, physical hardships, and deficiency in service caused by their actions and unfair trade practices, and another ₹10,000 towards the cost of legal proceedings.
However, the company on its part claimed that it had not received any notice from the Commission and dismissed the petition as bogus.
