Kalyan Silks Trichur Directed To Pay Compensation Of Rs. 25,000 And Refund Saree Cost For Defective Bridal Sarees: Ernakulum Consumer Commission

The Ernakulum Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided over by Sh. D.B. Binu, along with Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N as members, recently allowed a consumer complaint filed against Kalyan Silks Trichur. The complaint was filed by a retired Professor who alleged that two bridal sarees purchased from the textile retailer's Ernakulam showroom were damaged due to material and manufacturing defects. The Commission, while allowing the complaint, stated that Kalyan Silks didn't give clear care instructions for the sarees, creating a service deficiency. As a result, the commission ordered Kalyan Silks to compensate the consumer with Rs. 25,000 and pay back the sarees' cost, Rs. 30,040, along with an additional Rs. 20,000 for the litigation costs. Brief Facts Prof. Sarah Thomas, a retired professor, filed a complaint against a textile retailer, a subsidiary of the Kalyan Group. The retailer, claiming establishment since 1909, advertised of having the world's largest silk saree showroom network. As mentioned in the complaint, they specialize in lightweight bridal sarees, operating across India and internationally. In January 2018, Prof. Sarah, influenced by the retailer's advertisements, purchased two bridal sarees for her daughter from their Ernakulam showroom, spending Rs. 30,040/-. However, due to her daughter's canceled marriage, the sarees were never worn and regularly aired for preservation. On January 23, 2019, Prof. Sarah noticed black shades on one saree. Upon returning it, the retailer initially promised a replacement but later returned the defective saree without replacing it. Prof. Sarah claimed material and manufacturing defects, accusing the retailer of unfair trade practices and service deficiencies. As a result, she filed a consumer complaint. Arguments by Kalyan Silks Trichur Kalyan Silks Trichur acknowledged the sale of sarees for Rs. 30,040/- on 12 January 2018, emphasizing that it was purchased by the complainant's daughter, not the complainant herself. They argued that since the daughter, the actual purchaser, was not part of the complaint, the case should be dismissed. The retailer highlighted that the saree was packed in a velvet box with a warning about potential damage, suggesting that any harm was likely due to being stored in an airtight box for an extended period. They contended that the saree was free from manufacturing defects, emphasizing its construction from Silk thread and Kasavu. The retailer also claimed to have taken remedial action by repolishing the saree at LB Kanchipuram, the manufacturer, and returning it to the complainant on February 20, 2019. As per them, any damage caused to the saree was because of the storage method. Observation of the Commission The Commission noted that the retailer failed to provide clear care instructions, leading to a deficiency in service. In light of the retailer's shortcomings, the Commission concluded that the complainant was entitled to relief. Consequently, the Commission directed the retailer to pay the complainant a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the saree's damage, mental agony, and hardship. Additionally, the retailer was instructed to reimburse the complainant Rs. 30,040/-, the cost of the saree, and pay Rs. 20,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. The retailer was given 30 days to comply with these directions, and failure to do so would accrue interest at 9% per annum from the complaint date until realization. Case Title: Prof Sarah Thomas vs. M/s Kalyan Silks Trichur Pvt Ltd, Subsidiary of Kalyan Group Holding Company Counsel for the Complainant: Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil, Karipparambil Associates Counsel for the Opposite Party: Chairman and Managing Director, Kalyan Silks, Sri. T.S. Pattabhi Raman Click here to Read/Download the Order

Kalyan Silks Trichur Directed To Pay Compensation Of Rs. 25,000 And Refund Saree Cost For Defective Bridal Sarees: Ernakulum Consumer Commission

Apoorva Pandita

Tags