District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Ernakulum: While considering the instant matter wherein the complainant was aggrieved by the discolouration of a saree on first use, the Bench of D.B. Binu (President)*, V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N (Members) found that the complainant had to endure considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties (IHA Designs).
The DCDRC opined that the defective saree, purchased for a significant family function, discoloured on first use, causing emotional distress and public embarrassment, amounts to a defect in goods, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice under Sections 2(10), 2(11), and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Commission henceforth awarded overall compensation of Rs 36,500 to the complainant.
“The incident narrated by the complainant is not just about a defective saree——it reflects a deeper emotional hurt caused during a cherished family celebration”.
Background:
The complainant purchased 14 sarees worth Rs 89,199 from IHA Designs for his wife and relatives for his sister-in-law’s engagement function. The complainant alleged that he made the purchases upon being influenced by the advertisements of IHA Designs promising curated selections and high-quality craftsmanship. However, one of the purchased sarees priced at Rs 16,500, which was worn by the complainant’s wife for the first time during a function, began to suffer discolouration thereby causing visible embarrassment and emotional distress in front of family and guests.
Disappointed with the turn of events, the complainant approached persons concerned at IHA Designs; however, he was met with rude behaviour and refusal to replace the discoloured saree or give a refund. Subsequent efforts, including e-mails and a legal notice, went unanswered.
Aggrieved with the lack of response, the complainant approached the DCDRC alleging gross deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and a lack of professionalism in connection with the purchased product, which led to humiliation and mental agony; and sought refund, compensation, and costs totalling Rs 1,41,500 with interest and legal expenses.
The complainant further alleged that sister’s marriage, being a deeply personal and emotional milestone; however, it was tarnished due to the substandard product, poorly manufactured saree by IHA Design which began to discolour on contact with skin.
Commission’s Assessment:
Perusing the facts of the case, evidence presented by the complainant and taking note of the opposite parties’ failure to file a rebuttal of the complainant’s contentions, the DCDRC said that conscious failure to file their written version despite having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. “Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant”.
The Commission further pointed out that the complainant was a consumer as defined under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act). The transaction involves the purchase of sarees for personal and family use, which constitutes a consumer transaction. The grievance pertains to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, which are grounds recognized under Sections 2(11) and 2(47) of the Act. Hence, the complaint was held to be maintainable before the DCDRC.
Vis-a-vis deficiency of service, the DCDRC pointed out that saree discolouration fiasco occurred on an important family function, resulting in significant embarrassment and emotional distress to the complainant and his wife. Furthermore, despite repeated attempts by the complainant the opposite parties neither resolved the grievance. The failure to act upon a legitimate complaint, and the sale of a defective product, amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service.
The DCDRC stated that when a service provider, despite receiving notice, fails to respond to legitimate complaints or does not participate in proceedings, it amounts to an implied admission of the allegations. This nonchalant conduct reflects deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Therefore, from the afore-stated assessment, the DCDRC was satisfied to hold that the saree was defective and substandard; IHA Designs ignored repeated opportunities to amicably resolve the issue. Selling defective goods and failing to redress the consumer’s grievance promptly and effectively constitutes a clear case of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The law imposes a duty on sellers and service providers to ensure that products sold meet the promised standards and to address consumer complaints diligently. This principle reinforces that consumer satisfaction does not end with the sale; the post-sale responsibility is equally binding. Furthermore, the mental agony and humiliation suffered by the complainant and his wife due to the incident, justifies the award of reasonable compensation.
Thus, the DCDRC held the complainant to be entitled to relief under the Act. Therefore, the Commission directed IHA Designs to refund Rs 16,500 to the complainant i.e., the cost of the defective saree; pay Rs. 15,000 as compensation for mental agony, financial loss, and inconvenience, physical hardship; and Rs 5000 as costs of proceedings.
The refusal to acknowledge the grievance, coupled with the dismissive attitude of “Go to court,” shows not only a lack of accountability but a disregard for basic consumer dignity. This Commission cannot turn a blind eye to the emotional pain suffered by the complainant and his family, which goes far beyond monetary loss”.
[Joseph Niclavose v. IHA Designs Pvt. Ltd, DC/555/CC/415/2024, decided on 26-6-2025]
*Order by D.B. Binu, President
