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). 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 Commissions have erred in solely relying upon the Advocate Commissioner's report (Exh.5) as he cannot be said to be an expert in such matters not being an expert of the subject. He further submits, while relying upon Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act, that as the respondent no.4 pointed out defect in the tiles and adhesive, which could not be determined without proper analysis or test of the tiles and adhesive, the District Forum was required to direct the laboratory to make an analysis to find out whether the tiles or adhesive suffered from any defect as alleged in the complaint of the respondent no.4 or suffered from any other defect. He also submitted that the advocate commissioner's report (Exh.5) itself states that in order to check the strength/quality of the tiles/adhesive a scientific examination was required. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the manufacturer of the tiles/adhesive ought to have been impleaded as a party by the respondent no.4 as it was the necessary party. He also submits that no warranty or guarantee was ever given by the petitioner, inasmuch as nothing of this sort was mentioned either in any bill or invoice supplied by the petitioner or on the box of the tiles or adhesive. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Chairman & Managing Dierector, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. R. Chandramohan [Civil Appeal No.7289/2009], submits that as serious questions of facts are alleged in the instant case, therefore, it could not have been decided by the consumer forum as the proceedings before the consumer forum are summary in nature. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that the petitioner has nowhere mentioned the name of manufacturer of the tiles/adhesive anywhere on the bills or invoices supplied by it therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent no.4 to implead the manufacturer. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 also submits that the order dated 06.09.2018 vide which the advocate commissioner was appointed was not challenged/objected by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was provided with various opportunities to be present at the time of the site inspection by the advocate commissioner but he failed to be present, and as such the appointment of the advocate commissioner or the report submitted by him cannot be challenged by the petitioner at this stage. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4, while relying upon Section 2(r) of the Act, submits that the contention of the petitioner that the complaint filed by the respondent no.4 could not have been decided by the District forum, does not have any force as the instant matter pertains to unfair trade practice and as in the present cases the petitioner falsely representated the quality of the tiles and the adhesive supplied by it as premium quality, therefore, the district consumer forum had the jurisdiction to decide the complaint filed by the respondent no.4. 10. 10. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the complaint was not even maintainable before the consumer forum as the manufacturer of the tiles/adhesives, who was a necessary party, was not impleaded. However, this court, upon perusal of the material available on record, finds that the name of the manufacturer of the tiles/adhesive was nowhere mentioned in the bills or invoices supplied by the petitioner to the respondent no.4, and the petitioner has also not denied it. Moreover, the petitioner itself has not mentioned the name of the manufacturer during the proceedings before the respondent no.1 to 3. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect does not have any force. 12. Further, the objections raised by the learned counsel for petitioner regarding the reliance placed by respondent no.3 on the report of the advocate commissioner (Exh.5) coupled with the contention that the advocate commissioner does not have expertise about the subject, also does not have any force as firstly, the petitioner neither objected to the appointment of such Commissioner, which is evident from the order dated 13.11.2019 (Exh.6) that when the complainant requested for appointment of commissioner for inspection of tiles the petitioner had not raised any objection nor has anywhere challenged it; Secondly, the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunities by the advocate commissioner to be present at the of the site inspection as it is evident from the material available on record that on earlier occasion the site inspection was to take place on 11.11.2018, however as the petitioner was not available on that day, the site inspection was rescheduled to 17.11.2018, however, the petitioner even on 17.11.2018 failed to be present at the site inspection. Also, the advocate commissioner’s report (Annex.5) clearly mentions that the there were scratches on the tiles, and variations in the color of the tiles, it was also mentioned therein that it is uncertain whether the tiles belong to the same brand or not, also in some places tiles were fixed with the help of screw. Thus, the report of the advocate commissioner (Exh.5) substantiate the averments made by the respondent no.4 in his complaint. Thus, the report of the advocate commissioner (Exh.5) substantiate the averments made by the respondent no.4 in his complaint. Further, as far as the contention of the petitioner with respect to the examination of the tiles/adhesive by an appropriate laboratory is concerned, this court finds that the petitioner has nowhere explained as to which laboratory is appropriate laboratory to conduct the examination of the tiles/adhesives. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect does not have any force. 13. Further, the learned counsel has contended that the present case involves disputed questions of fact and the appropriate remedy for the same would have been a civil suit. However, this court finds that in the present case the dispute is regarding the defective or poor quality of tiles/adhesive supplied by the petitioner while giving the assurance of the premium quality of the such tiles/adhesives. Thus, the present matter relates to the ‘unfair trade practices’ as defined under Section 2(r) of the Act as the respondent no.4, in the complaint filed by him before the District Consumer Forum, made averments regarding the false representation of the goods since the petitioner assured him that the tiles/adghesives were of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model; however, it was discovered by the respondent no.4 that such tiles/adhesives were of inferior quality as there were scratches, bands and color varioations. Thus, the District Consumer Forum was competent to try the present case, the same being a consumer dispute arising from the unfair trade practices. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard does not have any force. Thus, the District Consumer Forum was competent to try the present case, the same being a consumer dispute arising from the unfair trade practices. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard does not have any force. Section 2(r) of the Act is reproduced as under: (r) "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely,- (1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which,- (i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model; (ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade; (iii) falsely represents any re-built, second-hand, renovated, reconditioned or old goods as new goods; (iv) represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have; (v) represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have; (vi) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services; (vii) gives to the public any warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product or of any goods that is not based on an adequate or proper test thereof: PROVIDED that where a defence is raised to the effect that such warranty or guarantee is based on adequate or proper test, the burden of proof of such defence shall lie on the person raising such defence; (viii) makes to the public a representation in a form that purports to be- (i) a warranty or guarantee of a product or of any goods or services; or (ii) a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result, if such purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that such warranty, guarantee or promise will be carried out; (ix) materially misleads the public concerning the price at which a product or like products or goods or services, have been or are, ordinarily sold or provided, and, for this purpose, a representation as to price shall be deemed to refer to the price at which the product or goods or services has or have been sold by sellers or provided by suppliers generally in the relevant market unless it is clearly the price at which the product has been sold or services have been provided by the person by whom or on whose behalf the representation is made; (x) gives false or misleading facts disparaging the goods, services or trade of another person. Explanation : For the purposes of clause (1), a statement that is- (a) expressed on an article offered or displayed for sale, or on its wrapper or container; or (b) expressed on anything attached to, inserted in, or accompanying, an article offered or displayed for sale, or on anything on which the article is mounted for display or sale; or (c) contained in or on anything that is sold, sent, delivered, transmitted or in any other manner whatsoever made available to a member of the public, shall be deemed to be a statement made to the public by, and only by, the person who had caused the statement to be so expressed, made or contained; (2)... (3)... (4)... (5)...” 14. This court also finds that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, (2023) 8 SCC 362 , has held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a social benefit-oriented legislation, and has been enacted to provide for protection of the interests of the consumers. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are as under: “21. The 1986 Act is a social benefit-oriented legislation and, therefore, the Court has to adopt a constructive liberal approach while construing the provisions of the Act. To begin with the Preamble to the 1986 Act which can afford useful assistance to ascertain the legislative intention, it was enacted to provide for the protection of the interests of consumers. The use of the word “protection” furnishes key to the minds of makers of the Act. Various definitions and provisions which elaborately attempt to achieve this objective have to be construed in this light without departing from the settled law that a Preamble cannot control otherwise plain meaning of a provision. XXX 23. The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. A scrutiny of various definitions such as “consumer”, “service”, “trader”, “unfair trade practice” indicates that legislature has attempted to widen the ambit and reach of the Act. Each of these definitions are in two parts, one explanatory and the other inclusive. The explanatory or the main part itself uses expressions of amplitude indicating clearly its wide sweep within its ambit to widen such things which otherwise would have been beyond its natural import. 24. Each of these definitions are in two parts, one explanatory and the other inclusive. The explanatory or the main part itself uses expressions of amplitude indicating clearly its wide sweep within its ambit to widen such things which otherwise would have been beyond its natural import. 24. The provisions of the 1986 Act thus have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit-oriented legislation. The primary duty of the Court/Commission while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary to attempted objective of the enactment.” Thus, it is important to note here that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial piece of legislation and was enacted to safeguard the interest of the consumers from the unfair trade practices used by the traders and should be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve its purpose however, such approach should not do violence to the provisions of the Act and should be in line with the attempted objective of the Act. 15. Thus, in view of the discussion in the above paragraphs, the interference of this court under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted in the orders dated 23.06.2021 (Exh.8) and 23.02.2024 (Exh.8). Accordingly, the instant writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Any Application (s), is pending, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to the cost.