The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has set aside the Tamil Nadu State Commission's order dismissing two consumer complaints against the Thirubhuvanam Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Sale Society Limited, remanding the cases for fresh decision after an independent report confirmed the zari in the disputed silk sarees contained silver far below the prescribed minimum.

A bench of Justice A. P. Sahi, President, and Bharat Kumar Pandya, Member, directed the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to take the National Test House, Kolkata report on record and decide First Appeal Nos. 437 and 438 of 2012 afresh, with the parties appearing on October 15, 2026.

The complaints arose from the purchase of two silk sarees by M. N. Ranjini and M. R. Nagendran for ₹21,661 and ₹15,105 respectively after rebate. The complainants, who claimed to be members of the society, alleged that the zari — the silver-based gold thread in the brocade — had a low silver content, which they discovered after testing the sarees at a centre in Salem. After a legal notice on July 9, 2011, they filed complaints alleging deficiency in service.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thanjavur, allowed the complaints on February 29, 2012, holding that the society had not followed government norms and had used substandard material. It ordered refund of the price on return of the sarees, ₹15,000 for mental agony, ₹5,000 as travel expenses and ₹1,500 as litigation costs to each complainant.

The State Commission reversed those orders on July 10, 2014, holding that the complainants had failed to establish any false representation and that the exhibits did not confirm the tested zari came from the sarees purchased from the society. It also held that the District Commission had not followed the procedure for expert opinion under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

A four-year wait for a test report

On July 10, 2019, the National Commission directed the Registrar of the District Forum to send both sarees for testing to Tamil Nadu Zari Limited, a Government of India undertaking at Kancheepuram. The laboratory, however, was not accredited by the National Accreditation Board, and on October 12, 2020, the Commission directed that the sarees be sent instead to the National Test House, Kolkata.

The report took more than three years to arrive. Although the National Test House said the certificate had been dispatched on December 15, 2020 , the Commission recorded that it was never received. It was only through a letter dated May 8, 2024 , with certified true copies of the certificate, that the report finally reached the Commission. The Commission had observed in April 2025 that the matter was "unnecessarily consuming the time of this Commission for the past several years."

Silver at 38-42% against a minimum of 60-75%

The certificate dated December 14, 2020 recorded silver content of 38.12% and 41.82% in the two sarees, and gold content of 0.46% in each. The Commission noted that the applicable specifications require minimum silver content of 75% for a Grade-1 saree and 60% for a Grade-2 saree, with minimum gold of 0.5% and 0.25% respectively.

The petitioners argued that the report confirmed the silver content was far below the standards. The Commission had earlier recorded that "the content of silver is definitely far below the standards as indicated above," even while noting that the gold content of 0.46% was about the 0.5% required for a Grade-1 saree.

Sample identity objection rejected

The society contended there was no evidence that the sarees sent for testing were the same sarees purchased by the complainants, questioning the invoice numbers. The National Commission rejected the challenge, noting the sarees had been sent for testing on its directions and under the supervision of the District Commission, in whose custody they had remained.

"The contention raised on behalf of the Respondent to the report on the ground that the same saree had not been sent is not substantiated by any relevant material except for bald assertions made by the Respondent," the bench observed.

The Commission clarified that it could not, in revisional jurisdiction, undertake a fresh appreciation of findings of fact. Its intervention addressed the material irregularity when the State Commission discarded the District Commission's appreciation without getting any test conducted at its level, despite the procedure under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

"We therefore find that this evidence deserves to be considered by the State Commission for appreciation in the light of the contentions raised by the parties as also the contents of the test reports that had been relied upon by the District Commission ," the bench said.

Appeals restored for fresh consideration

Allowing both revision petitions, the Commission set aside the State Commission's order and restored the appeals. The office was directed to dispatch the National Test House report to the State Commission after retaining a photocopy on record.

"We accordingly set aside the Order of the State Commission dated 10.07.2014 for consideration of the matter afresh by the State Commission in the light of the report of the National Test House and the objection taken to it by the Respondents," the bench ordered.

The State Commission is at liberty to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, with both parties directed to appear before it on October 15, 2026.