New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has set aside an order of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that dismissed two complaints concerning the quality of zari used in silk sarees sold by Thirubhuvanam Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. The National Commission remanded both cases for fresh consideration after a report from the National Test House, Kolkata, found silver content substantially below the prescribed standards.
A Bench comprising NCDRC President Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Bharat Kumar Pandya held that the test report constituted material evidence that the State Commission must consider along with the parties’ submissions and other available evidence. However, the Commission clarified that it would not reassess the factual disputes afresh while exercising its revisional jurisdiction.
Background of the Consumer Complaints
The revision petitions were filed by two consumers, M.N. Ranjini and M.R. Nagendran, who had purchased silk sarees from the Society for ₹21,661 and ₹15,105, respectively, after rebate. They alleged that the zari used in the sarees contained less silver than required under the applicable Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) specifications.
After obtaining test reports from a testing centre in Salem, the complainants issued a legal notice to the Society on July 9, 2011, alleging deficiency in service.
The District Consumer Commission, Thanjavur, allowed both complaints and directed the Society to refund the purchase price upon return of the sarees. It also awarded each complainant ₹15,000 as compensation for mental agony, ₹5,000 towards travel expenses and ₹1,500 towards litigation costs.
State Commission Reversed the District Commission’s Decision
The Society challenged the District Commission’s orders before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Commission, which allowed the appeals on July 10, 2014, and set aside the relief granted to the complainants.
The State Commission held that the complainants had failed to establish that the zari samples tested belonged to the sarees purchased from the Society. It also found that the procedure for obtaining expert evidence under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, had not been followed. On these grounds, the complaints were dismissed.
The complainants subsequently approached the NCDRC by filing Revision Petition Nos. 4083 and 4084 of 2014.
National Test House Report Revealed Low Silver Content
During the revision proceedings, the NCDRC directed that the sarees deposited with the District Commission be tested by an appropriate laboratory.
An initial direction to send the sarees to Tamil Nadu Zari Limited could not be implemented because the testing centre was not accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL). The Commission subsequently directed that the sarees be sent to the National Test House, Kolkata.
The report, issued in December 2020 and subsequently brought on record through a communication dated May 8, 2024, recorded the following findings:
- First saree: Silver content of 41.82%.
- Second saree: Silver content of 38.12%.
- Gold content: 0.46% in both samples.
The complainants contended that the silver content was substantially below the prescribed minimum of 75% for Grade-1 sarees and 60% for Grade-2 sarees.
NCDRC Rejects Society’s Objection to Sample Identification
The Society disputed the test report, arguing that there was no proof that the sarees sent for testing were the same sarees purchased by the complainants.
The NCDRC found that this objection was not supported by relevant material. It observed that the sarees had been sent for testing pursuant to its directions and under the supervision of the District Commission, where they had remained in custody.
The Commission also noted that the State Commission had reversed the District Commission’s findings on procedural grounds without obtaining an independent test report of its own. The subsequent National Test House report, obtained through the intervention of the NCDRC, was therefore material to the adjudication of the dispute.
Importance of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The NCDRC observed that the prescribed procedure for obtaining expert evidence under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, had not been properly followed while dealing with the dispute over the quality of the zari.
The Commission found that a material irregularity had occurred when the State Commission discarded the earlier findings without following the prescribed procedure for expert evidence.
However, the NCDRC refrained from determining the factual dispute itself. It held that the National Test House report, the Society’s objections and the material previously relied upon by the District Commission must be considered together by the State Commission.
The order does not amount to a final finding that the Society supplied defective sarees. That question remains open for determination during the fresh hearing.
Fresh Hearing Ordered
Allowing both revision petitions, the NCDRC set aside the State Commission’s order dated July 10, 2014, and restored First Appeal Nos. 437 and 438 of 2012 for fresh consideration.
The State Commission has been directed to take the National Test House report on record, allow the Society to file its objections and provide the complainants with an opportunity to respond. The appeals must then be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
The parties have been directed to appear before the State Commission on October 15, 2026.
Significance of the Decision
The decision highlights the importance of scientific testing and expert evidence in consumer disputes involving the quality of purchased goods. It also underscores the need for consumer commissions to follow the prescribed statutory procedure when relying on or evaluating laboratory evidence.
By remanding the matters, the NCDRC has ensured that the test results and the parties’ objections receive proper consideration before a final decision is reached.
Case Details
Case Title: M.N. Ranjini v. Deputy Director/Special Officer, Thirubhuvanam Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. and M.R. Nagendran v. Deputy Director/Special Officer, Thirubhuvanam Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.
Case Number: Revision Petition Nos. 4083 and 4084 of 2014.
Bench: Justice A.P. Sahi, President, and Bharat Kumar Pandya, Member.
Court: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
