Consumer Right Upheld

GETS REFUND FOR INFERIOR QUALITY CLOTH SOLD TO HIM

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 (consumer) 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 giving rise to a consumer dispute. The customer, at the first instance approached the shopkeeper for a settlement which the shopkeeper declined. The matter was thus 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, the cloth was given for stitching the same day. After a couple of 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 hence requested for a refund. The proprietor was not available at the shop at that point of time, therefore the salesman could not refund the amount.

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 out. I presumed, 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 perfectly alright. The defect if any is in its stitching and hence she is not in a position to accede to my request for refund/replacement. Even though I tried to explain the cloth failed (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 the phone kept on ringing. I dialed for the second time, third time, but my call was not taken. After three consecutive failed attempts, I was convinced 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 shopkeeper 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. Surprisingly, the shopkeeper did not respond even to my written complaint. Having exhausted all channels for a settlement, 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 along 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 in question was of inferior quality and secondly there was deficiency in service on the part of the seller.

Earlier during the course of hearing, I had made it clear that I was open for an amicable settlement, and have no intention to stretch the matter beyond that. After detailed deliberations and discussions, the shopkeeper who was noncommittal initially, subsequently accepted the fact that cloth material in question is inferior in quality, thus offered to refund only the cost of cloth sold by her.

Since I was constrained to approach the forum, I declined the offer and pressed for refund of stitching charges in addition to the cost of cloth. Ultimately the shopkeeper refunded not only the cost of cloth but also the stitching charges and the dispute was settled in my favour.

Here it is worth mentioning, the matter could be taken to its logical conclusion solely because, I had with me the proof of purchase ie 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.

To conclude, I would like to put on record that being a consumer, we have every right to be satisfied by the purchase we make and in case we have a grievance, there is remedy available under Consumer Protection Act, provided we approach the forum and assert our right.

Reported from CD Case No 4 of 2010, Debkumar Bhadra Versus Proprietor, Kapur Singh Chani & Sons

This post was carried in The Light of Andamans, Vol 36, Issue 4 dated 15 Nov 2012