SABITA KANJILAL vs GAYATRI BERA

THIS appeal arises out of a small dispute regarding the purchase of a defective Saree (wearing cloth of an Indian woman). The complainant respondent purchased a silk saree from the appellant''s shop. It is alleged that the complainant went to attend a social function wearing the saree and then noticed that the saree was defective. It has been further alleged by the complainant that she went to the shop several times to draw the attention of the shop-owner to the condition of the saree and to have it replaced by a new one, but she was not welcomed by the salesmen of the shop who scoffed at her in her attempt to have a replacement of the saree after the expiry of the usual three days.

THE District Forum examined the saree in the open Court and held that the saree was not damaged by any haphazard use. THE Forum, therefore, allowed the complainant''s case and directed the opposite party to refund the price of the saree amounting to Rs. 1,090/-. Before the Commission the appellant tried to argue that the saree was actually taken for replacement after a good number of days. The essence of the appellant''s contention is that the saree could not be replaced nor its price be refunded after a lapse of a few stipulated number of days.

We have also inspected the saree in the Court room. We agree with the conclusion of the District Forum that the saree was a defective one. It does not bear any sign of tearing but shows that there was disintegration of weaving thread.

THE Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has brought a new concept to the seller-buyer relationship. THE old idea of ''caveat emptor'' has yielded to the purchaser''s right to grit a defectfree article for which due consideration has been paid. Even if there was any delay in taking the goods to the seller, it does not take away the buyer''s right of obtaining any goods free from defect. If the damage to the goods was not done by the purchaser, who would be responsible for the damage ? Certainly it would be the responsibility of the seller who has no right to sell any defective goods to a buyer. We, therefore, endorse the view taken by the lower Court and order that the appeal be dismissed on contest, but without any cost. The price of the saree must be refunded within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order. Appeal dismissed.