Andhra Pradesh

Garment shop directed to repay with damages

VISAKHAPATNAM: Can there be deficiency service in the case of goods purchased even under `no exchange, no guarantee’ sale? Yes, when it was not given free but for some consideration. The Visakhapatnam District Consumer Forum-I in one such case directed a garment dealer in the city guilty of unfair trade practice to repay the money collected from a consumer with compensation and costs.

A resident of old city SVD Parvateesam bought a baba suit from Donna Family Shoppe beside St. Anthony Church near Jagadamba Junction for Rs.300 for Pongal. But its zip was damaged during the first wear itself. When the dealer was contacted for replacement, the consumer was told that it could not be done as the purchase was on `no exchange and no guarantee’ basis.

The consumer then filed a complaint (96/2008) in the Forum against the dealer seeking replacement of the damaged dress with a new one or to repay the cost of the dress along with compensation and cost of litigation. The opposite party (OP) said the sale was under a big banner saying` no exchange/no guarantee’. The complainant never visited the shop in connection with the alleged complaint, it said, further contending that the product was not manufactured by it and the complaint was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary party.

President of the Forum-I Y. Dhilleswara Rao and members G. Viswanatha Reddy and D. Suseela who examined the evidence noted that the maximum retail price of the item was shown as Rs.400 and the discount price as Rs.320. The bill showed total price as Rs.300. It was typed ‘no refund-only exchange’ and there was another stamp also affixed as ‘no guarantee’, ‘no exchange’.

“…It may be a clearance sale of old stock so far as the OP is concerned. But it is a new arrival of a select item into the house of the complainant that gives joy and happiness to the kid.

But it failed to withstand even a single use. Kids are sensitive and non-compromising. Parents incur displeasure of the kid apart from loss of money. … It is basically a sale for some consideration but not an exercise of free distribution to get rid of the stock. Therefore, the product purchased by the complainant must have the utility worth Rs.300 at least but the product could not withstand even a single use. Even the request made by the complainant to replace the damaged zip was also turned down,” they observed.

Regarding the contention that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of the manufacturer, the Forum noted that the OP did not place any document before the Forum showing that it was appointed as dealer by some manufacturer. In all fairness, it should be revealed who that necessary party was, the Forum pointed out.

Noting that the stamps on the bill were misleading, which was unfair trade practice, to boost the sales of discarded goods with no utility to the consumers, the Forum found it a case of deficiency in service, for `disappointing a boy of aged eight years, taunting the complainant and his wife (parents of the boy) on a trivial issue.’

In its recent verdict, the Forum directed the OP to repay Rs. 300 being cost of the product paid by the consumer, along with Rs.1,500 towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000 towards costs.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu