The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala has directed a major textile retailer to compensate a customer to the tune of ₹75,000 on charge of failure to replace a defective silk wedding saree.
The commission, comprising president D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., issued the verdict on a petition filed by Sarah Thomas of Changanassery. The complainant had bought two bridal sarees for her daughter from Kalyan Silk’s Ernakulam showroom on January 12, 2018 for ₹30,040. However, they were never worn as the wedding was later called off.
According to the complainant, she noticed black shades on one of the sarees on January 23, 2019 despite regularly airing them for preservation. The retailer initially promised a replacement but later returned the defective saree without replacing it, the complainant alleged.
The complainant said the saree’s damage was due to material and manufacturing defects and accused the retailer of unfair and deceptive trade practices, along with service deficiencies, causing her severe mental agony, loss and hardship.
The retailer, on their part, countered that the saree was purchased by the complainant’s daughter and since the actual purchaser was not a party to the complaint, the petition was not maintainable and should be dismissed on that basis alone.
The retailer also pointed out that the saree was packed in a velvet box at the time of purchase and that the complainant’s daughter was warned that keeping the saree in such a box could cause damage. The retailer contended that any damage was likely due to the product being stored in an airtight box for an extended period and that it was free from manufacturing defects.
The retailer also maintained that the complainant had failed to produce any evidence of manufacturing defects before the commission. The saree was returned to the complainant after repolishing on February 20, 2019.
Dismissing the retailer’s contention, 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.
Lack of clear instructions
The commission further observed that the issue arose from the retailer’s lack of clear instructions on how to properly preserve the saree.
“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.
