THE LIGHT OF ANDAMANS | VOL 36 | ISSUE 04 | 15 NOV 2012
RIGHT | CORNER:
Consumer Rights Upheld
By Debkumar Bhadra
Based on need, liking and
other personal factors, a buyer visits a shop, makes a particular choice, pays
for it and owns the item for use. In the whole exercise, where goods (including
services) and money change hands, the customer by virtue of payment made is
entitled to get full value of goods (including services) worth paid for and the
seller by virtue of accepting payment is bound to deliver full value of goods
(including services) to the customer. But this principle of fair trade is not
always followed. This article discusses one such incident where inferior
quality cloth was sold to a customer. At the first instance, the customer
approached the shopkeeper for a refund, failing which the matter was taken to
consumer forum where the consumer got full refund of the amount paid by him
along with incidental cost.
During February 2010, I
purchased cloth for making sofa cushion cover from a shop at Junglighat. After
making a particular selection from the shop display, I thought it prudent to
inquire about the quality of the cloth. The salesman informed the selected
cloth is of good quality and that the shop had sold two complete rolls of the
particular cloth material without any complaint from any of the previous
customers. Having heard a positive remark, I decided to purchase the cloth
material, paid for it in cash and obtained a receipt for the purchase.
Since I was expecting a
very important guest in the days to come, I gave the cloth for stitching the
same day. After a few days, the tailor came with sofa covers stitched out of
the cloth. While the cover was put on the cushions, to my utter surprise, I
noticed signs of tearing from along the stitch line. The tailor, who was
sweating profoundly by this time, informed the cloth is of inferior quality,
unfit for such application. I was shocked to see the stitch was unable to hold
the cloth; the fabric was easily slipping out leaving the stitch in place.
Next day, the first thing I
did was to take the entire cloth material to the shop. The salesman agreed the
cloth material was indeed inferior in quality and offered replacement. Since
the options available at the shop did not match my home décor, I could not
accept replacement and requested for a refund. Since the proprietor was not
available at the shop at that point of time, he could not refund the amount
paid.
While waiting for the
proprietor, I glanced through the display rack, but did not find the particular
cloth material. The salesman informed the entire stock has been sold. I
understood, the cloth material has been removed from display, but did not
disclose my disagreement.
After waiting for some
time, I urged the salesman to inform the proprietor over phone. The shopkeeper
was preoccupied hence desired that I should leave the cloth in the shop for her
to see. Accordingly I left one piece of
the sofa cover and my mobile number at the shop with the hope that my grievance
will be addressed by the shopkeeper.
The entire day passed
without any communication from the shop.
The following day, I initiated a telephone call to the shop which the
owner attended herself. The moment I introduced myself, she took no time
telling that the cloth material sold to me is good. The defect if any is in its
stitching and hence she is not in a position to accede to my request for a
refund/replacement. Even though I tried to explain the cloth tore along the
stitch line leaving the stitch in place, she disconnected the phone call while
the conversation was still in progress.
Thinking the call might
have got disconnected due to some network error, I rang back but there was no
answer. I dialed for the second time, third time, but the phone kept on
ringing. After three consecutive failed attempts, I concluded the shopkeeper is
in no mood to listen to my complaint hence willingly disconnected the phone
call midway.
Aggrieved, I sent a written
complaint to the shop owner which was received at the shop as is evident from
the acknowledgement card returned to me by the post office duly signed and
sealed by the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper did not respond even to my written
complaint, therefore I had no option but to approach the Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum (District Forum at Port Blair) for redress of my
grievances.
In the very first hearing,
(I appeared in person and the respondent shopkeeper through a counsel) I
demonstrated how the cloth failed from the stitch line and also narrated how
all my sincere efforts to settle the dispute with the shopkeeper failed. The
respondent counsel sought time to which the forum agreed and listed the matter
for further hearing. Again during second hearing, the respondent counsel sought
time.
During the third hearing,
the proprietor attended along with her counsel, wherein I once again put forth
my grievance arising out of inferior cloth material sold by respondent
shopkeeper. After hearing to the submissions made by me, the respondent and her
counsel, the forum agreed, prima facie the cloth material was defective and
there was deficiency in service on the part of the seller.
Earlier during the course
of hearing, I made it clear that I was open for an amicable settlement, and
have no intention to stretch the matter beyond that. The shopkeeper was
unwilling initially, but after detailed discussions, subsequently accepted the
fact that cloth material sold to me is of inferior quality, thus offered to
refund the cost of cloth. Since I had to approach the forum, I declined the
offer and pressed for refund of the amount spent towards stitching, in addition
to the cost of the cloth. Ultimately the shopkeeper refunded not only the cost
of cloth but also the stitching charges and I agreed for a compromise term for
settlement of the dispute.
Here it is worth
mentioning, the matter could be taken up to its logical conclusion (in my
favour) solely because, I had with me the proof of purchase ie the cash
memo/bill of the shop. Another important document that assisted me in the
matter was the call detail; this enabled me in establishing that the phone call
was initiated by me, which the shopkeeper disconnected while the conversation
was in progress. This helped me in proving deficiency in service on the part of
the shopkeeper. Thus the case was settled on compromise terms at the district
forum.
To conclude, I would also
like to put on record that being a consumer, we have every right to be
satisfied by the purchase and in case we have a grievance, there is remedy
available under Consumer Protection Act, provided we approach the forum and
assert our right.
Taken from CD Case No 4 of
2010, Dekumar Bhadra
Versus Proprietor, Kapur Singh Chani & Sons.
No comments:
Post a Comment