IMPORTANT POINT
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is designed to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and should be interpreted in favor of consumer interests.

ORDER :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed, under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, by the petitioner against the order dated 23.06.2021 passed by the respondent no.2-State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent no.2/SCDRC’) and order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the respondent no.1-National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent no.1/NCDRC’).

2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by way of an appropriate writ, direction or order;

(A) Judgment Exhibit 7 dt. 23.06.2021 partly allowing the appeal filed petitioner may kindly be modified to the extent dismissing the complaint Exhibit 3 intoto filed by the private respondent.

(B) Judgment Exhibit 8 dt. 23.02.2024 passed by the learned respondent no.1 may kindly be partly quashed and set aside to the extent it dismisses the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner.

(C) Cost of writ petition may kindly be allowed.

(D) Pass such other orders, as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no.4 purchased various ceramic tiles and adhesive material for the renovation of his house from the petitioner upon the assurance of the latter that the tiles are of premium quality and are scratch-free, band-proof, and there will be no variations in color of the tiles and also that the adhesive is of premium quality. However, on completition of the renovation work by 16.11.2017, it was discovered by the respondent no.4 that the tiles supplied were of inferior quality and there were scratches and color variations on the tiles, also the adhesive supplied by the petitioner was also of poor quality. Aggrieved by the same the respondent no.4 filed a complaint (Exh.3) before respondent no.3 (District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bikaner) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The respondent no.3 vide order dated 06.09.2018 appointed an Advocate commissioner on the request of respondent no.4 to examine the tiles used in his house and thereafter submit a report on the same, and the petitioner did not object to the same. The advocate commissioner submitted his report dated 17.11.2024 (Exh.5). Thereafter, the respondent no.3 vide order dated 13.11.2019 (Exh.6) allowed the complaint filed by the respondent no.4 and awarded a sum of Rs.11,10,000/- along with interest the interest as mentioned thereunder in favour of respondent no.4. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2019 (Exh.6), the petitioner preferred the appeal no.32/2021 before the respondent no.2/SCDRC. And the respondent no.2/SCDRC vide order dated 23.06.2021 (Exh.7) partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner to the extent of reducing the quantum awarded by the respondent no.3 under the head of labour charges and mental agony i.e., Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner as well as the respondent no.4 filed respective revision petitions before the respondent no.1/NCDRC. However, the respondent no.1/NCDRC dismissed both the revision petitions vide judgment dated 23.02.2024 (Exh.8). Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 23.02.2024 (Exh.8), the petitioner filed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13977 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.07.2024 observed that the remedy of the petitioner lies before the High Court and liberty was granted to the petitioner to withdraw the aforesaid Special Leave Petition while reserving the rights of the petitioner to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. Thus, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District forum and both the