From Branded Bags To Water Bottles: Here're 3 Times Consumers Made Sellers Pay For Unfair Trade Practices

Every year on December 24, India marks the Bharatiya Grahak Diwas or the National Consumer Day with an aim to spread awareness about consumer rights and keep them aware of the power they hold as consumers. The Consumer Protection Bill, which enshrines these elements and protects citizens from malpractices, came into force on this very day 36 years ago. Since then, it has been pivotal in ensuring easy and fast compensation for consumer grievances and safeguarding their rights.

Initially, it outlined six consumer rights that all Indian citizens have and expanded with further amendments made in 1991, 1993, 2002, and 2003. The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 was repealed and replaced by the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. Consumers were enabled to register their grievances through a complaint redressal forum, which would address the concerns effectively. As National Consumer Day marks one more year of protecting rights, The Logical Indian looks back at three times consumers won their fights by bringing traders and their unfair practices to the light.

A ₹24 Bag Turned Costly For Retail Chain

Ravikiran C, 34, an advocate in Bangalore, was carrying out his routine grocery shopping from the Reliance Smart Point in Bangalore on July 2022. After purchasing household items worth over ₹2,000, he was asked to pay an additional ₹24.9 for a carry bag that carried the store's label. As an advocate aware of the legal aspects surrounding bags with brand tags, he initially refused to pay for the bag but was forced into it as he had to carry the goods home.

However, soon after the incident, the advocate approached the Bengaluru urban district consumer disputes redressal commission and filed a complaint against Reliance Retail Limited and the branch manager for unfair trade practices. He presented the case himself in the litigation and carried out the case ex-parte for months. Quoting provisions under the Customer Protection Act and instances of malls providing carry bags for free as an intrinsic part of their customer satisfaction criteria, he argued that retailers are duty-bound to offer a carry bag when purchases are made.

Upon being convinced that the retailers engaged in unfair trade practices, the court asked the brand to refund ₹24.9 collected from the customer and additionally pay compensation of ₹5,000 and another ₹2,000 towards his court expenses. According to a report by Times Now News, they observed that if a carry bag with a brand logo is sold to consumers, the brand is indirectly advertising without spending a rupee. Hence the customers are not liable to pay for the brand's free-of-cost advertising tactic. Further, it is an unfair practice not to grant customers free carry bags for their purchase, and they should be informed before their purchase if they will be charged additionally for the bags.

Not A Rupee More Than MRP

In recent news, an Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) contractor was fined ₹1 Lakh by the Ambala division of Indian Railways for charging a customer ₹5 extra on a water bottle. The passenger, Shivam Bhatt, took to Twitter with the claims that he was charged ₹20 for a bottle of water carrying a maximum retail price (MRP) of ₹15.

Since the train does not have its pantry car, it has had to depend on various such on-board vendors authorised by the IRCTC. Based on the complaint filed, the licensed contractor was looked up and booked under Section 144 (1) of the Railways Act and slapped with a fine of ₹1 lakh. A report by Business Today quoted the senior divisional commercial manager, Hari Mohan, saying, "It was also discussed how to improve on train-side vending and overcharging complaints."

Company Chokes Up Compensation For Misleading Advertisement

PP Soudhamini of Thrissur purchased a Ford Classic Diesel car in 2014 for a price of ₹8,94,876. In 2015, she took the company to the consumer court with the complaint that there was a huge gap between the promised mileage and the vehicle's actual mileage. According to brochures and leaflets issued by the manufacturer, the customer was assured a mileage of 32 km per litre. However, the complainant claimed that the vehicle failed to offer the promised mileage and came around with only 16kmpl. Furthermore, one of the tyres underwent bulging even though the car had covered merely 10,000 km.

The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Thrissur heard the case and appointed an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering of the Government Engineering College as the expert commissioner to examine the complaint. The commissioner concluded that the vehicle's actual mileage was around 19.6 kmpl, a deviation of approximately 40 per cent.

Ford tried to defend their position by stating that the mileage claimed in the brochure was based on a test conducted by a third-party agency. The Forum, however, stressed that the responsibility falls upon the manufacturer once they endorse such figures in their brochure. As a seller, they are responsible for offering the customer what was promised and charged them for and amounted their "misleading advertisement highlighting an exaggerated mileage" as an unfair trade practice.

According to The Hindu's report, the Forum awarded the complainant ₹1.50 lakh towards financial loss, ₹1.50 lakh for mental agony and distress, and ₹10,000 towards legal expenses with an interest of 9 per cent from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment. A total of ₹3.10 lakh went to the car owner for not receiving the promised mileage as per the vehicle's advertisement.

These are just a few select cases out of the numerous such cases that are being taken to the consumer court on a regular basis. While it could be tasking to approach a violation legally, it is a loud statement in regard to the rights that consumers hold in the democratic setting.

Also Read: Consumer Rights! Know How This Bengaluru Man Gets Refund After Being Forced To Buy Branded Carry Bag