|
Metro Plus
Caution, the watchword
|
"Goods once sold cannot be returned... " this statement on bills is against the law. Consumers can go to the court if the shopkeepers refuse to exchange defective products.
|
THIS IS a tale of two letters. One clothed in authority, the other a cry of anguish. The underlying anger, the need for justice is unmistakable in both.
One seeks to implement a rule and the other wonders if there is one. They come from different parts of the country but converge on a common question.
The Government-sealed letter from the Union Cabinet Minister, dated December 22, 1999, states, ``I would like to bring to your notice an illegal and unethical trade practice followed by traders/shopkeepers in the country.
In the cash memo/bills issued to the consumers, there is a unilateral condition stating ``Goods once sold will not be taken back/exchanged'' etc. This condition is against the law."
The missive reminds consumer courts of their power to deal with violation and requests the concerned Ministry to take ``immediate appropriate action by issuing necessary guidelines to ensure that the cash memos/bills etc. issued in your State by the traders/shopkeepers do not carry the condition...''
The second letter is from Reader's Mail, The Hindu dated two years later almost to the day. ``On December10,'' the letter goes, ``I bought stainless steel household items at a shop in T.Nagar...I used one of the items on December 15 and found it leaking. I took it to the shop on December 17 for exchange. The shopkeeper refused to replace it and went to the extent of suggesting that I sell it on weight basis as old material!'' The writer does not say if the cash bill carried the protective declaration.
The Minister informs us in his message, ``in developed countries the sellers declare, "In case you are not fully satisfied with our products, you can bring the same to us within a month for either replacement or return of your money.''
In the same column, another letter writer confirms the Minister's statement about business practices abroad and points out that our bills do have the arbitrary utterance printed.
Let's do an audit of the bills we have. What does the fine print say?
The first invoice in my file is from a well-known optician. Under the heading ``Please Read Carefully'' the prohibited words are printed in red. In case you missed it (it says in blue), ``No refund under any reason.'' Cash/credit bills from an electronic appliances enterprise, one information systems private limited, a glamorous sanitaryware shop, a repair shop for a popular brand of mixies, a company selling home appliances, a local electrical shop, an aircool systems outlet... all carry the words that the Minister considers `illegal'. To be fair to the traders they are not stock sentences.
One goes, ``Materials once despatched... ," another ``Our responsibility ceases when the delivery mentioned in the invoice has been effected. You cannot fault our merchants on original composition." One can reasonably assume there are a lot more.
How come no one has bothered to arrest this practice? ``The law is clear on defective products,'' says Bharath Jayraj of Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group.
``You have every right to file a complaint under the Consumer's Act. When you take the defective product to the court the shopkeeper cannot absolve himself of liability quoting the ``Goods once sold...." mentioned in the bill. When you unpack a shirt at home and find a tear, the shopkeeper cannot say, ``It is our policy not to take back goods once sold.''
When you open a bag of rice and see weevil in it, the seller just has to give you good stuff. He can try other arguments like, `You should have checked before buying, you should have come back earlier', but these are separate issues."
He recalls an incident. ``A mother wrote `Lemon Barley Squash' on a piece of paper and sent her child to the grocer. The child came back with plain lemon squash. When asked for replacement the shopkeeper refused to exchange it. He quoted the well-known words and said the product was not defective. He relented after we spoke to him about the relevant rules.'' But there must be scores of consumers who are cowed into compliance by the imperious statement.
Obviously there is a shopkeeper's side to the argument.
As Jayraj indicates, there are upmarket shops that display a return policy with riders like `Bring it with tag and receipt' or `Exchange only for two weeks'. Some claim they would replace only defective goods and not according to the `whims and fancies' of the consumer. Branded clothes carry the statements `Colour will run' or `Likely to shrink'.
"But because of the goodwill, loss of business and competition, more and more shops now allow exchanges,'' says Jayraj. ``Some corner shops even warn regular customers not to buy certain goods.''There is no doubt the words are unethical.
When confronted, one shopkeeper said he wasn't aware it was banned.
Another excused himself saying his bill books were printed before the law came into force.
A third said everyone did it. Many declared they did not sell defective goods, so those words were irrelevant.
Jayraj reiterates, ``Those words are not a protection mechanism for the retailer.
He cannot sell a defective product. How he replaces the material is his headache. Check before you buy anything and preserve your receipts. "
GEETA PADMANABHAN
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Metro Plus
|
