Installation Of Inferior Quality Football Turf Despite Paying Full Amount For Superior Turf An Unfair Trade Practice: Kerala Consumer Commission

The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently held that repeated installation of inferior quality football turf despite payment of the full amount for installing a superior quality turf, would constitute unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. held that the failure of the supplier to provide FIFA standard 'LIMONTA' brand artificial turf despite accepting full payment for the same, amounted to a clear deficiency in service, and consequently awarded Rs. 1,14,700/- as compensation to the complainant. The complainant who operates the Legends Academy football academy and ground in Chottanikara, on rented premises, had been persuaded by the supplier to install FIFA standard artificial turt and was promised 'LIMONTA' brand turf. The complainant averred that the artificial turf which had been installed upon payment of Rs. 25,04,700/- after mortgaging his property, quickly deteriorated and was found to be of inferior quality made by a local brand. It was submitted that despite assurances from the supplier of repair or replacement of the turf, the damaged turf was again replaced with another local turf, which allegedly led to further damage, thereby causing the complainant financial loss and mental stress. He thus sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,44,757 as compensation, additional interest, ground rest, damages for mental suffering, and the cost of proceedings. Finding that the actions of the opposite party constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission observed:"The supplier's conduct in failing to deliver the promised product and service, coupled with their lack of response to the legal notices, amounts to a blatant disregard for consumer rights and is indicative of negligence and unfair trade practice". It thereby ordered compensation to be awarded to the complainant to the tune of the original amount paid for the turf, in addition to Rs 75,000 as cost for mental and physical agony and a further Rs 10,000 as costs of proceedings.The complainant was represented by Advocate Blossom Mathew. Case Title: Santhosh M.S. v. Manager, Sports TerrainCase Number: CC No. 240/ 2021Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Installation Of Inferior Quality Football Turf Despite Paying Full Amount For Superior Turf An Unfair Trade Practice: Kerala Consumer Commission

Navya Benny

Tags