Laws laid down by supreme court

SECONDRY EVIDENCE ENOUGH TO PROVE THE PURCHASE IN CASE BILL NOT AVAILABLE

          

  SECONDRY EVIDENCE ENOUGH TO PROVE THE PURCHASE

IN CASE BILL NOT AVAILABLE

 

                     Escape rout is often opted by the traders and sellers as and when consumer knocks at the door of consumer court by asking for the bill knowing fully well that bill has not been made compulsory till date in the country. However consumer courts accept the secondary evidence such as –visiting card of the seller showing advance given, any hand written slip by the seller which admits the sale or rendering services.

 

National commission has recently rejected all such arguments extended by the sellers to rebut the sale of shampoo pouch after expiry date lapsed 5 years ago even when proper bill could not be produced by the complainant

 

                 The facts in brief are that Taranjit Kaur a resident of Dhuri village ha used a pouch of 9 ml of Pantene Shampoo pouch which her father, Amarjit Singh, had bought. After washing her hair with the shampoo, it got gummed and lost its form. When Singh brought this to the retailer's notice, he took up the issue with the distributor, and with the manufacturing company, Proctor and Gamble Home Products (P&G). P&G then paid for Taranjit's one-time hair treatment at Vandana Luthra Care Clinic (VLCC). But Taranjit's hair could not be brought back to its original form, forcing her to get it removed.

She filed a complaint against P&G, its distributor, the retailer and VLCC for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Sangrur district forum held P&G and the retailer liable and directed them to pay Rs 25,000.

P&G appealed to the Punjab state commission, which dismissed the appeal and directed payment of an additional Rs 2,000.

P&G then approached the National commission in revision, raising legal and technical objections. It claimed that the bill for the purchase had not been produced no testing report was obtained

.National commission after going through the facts before it dismissed the arguments extended by Op’s keeping in view the facts –

·         That nothing was left in the pouch after use which could be sent for testing.

·         The facts clearly revealed that the opposite party had admitted the fault by providing the consumer treatment with VLCC. It was only the situation when damaged hair could not be retored to the original state and complainant under the circumstances had to cut all hair and she filed a case before the consumer forum. There was no denial of the damage due to expired shampoo

·         That Procter and Gamble did not file any report by testing similar pouches, which could prove that the shampoo was not spurious.

Dr Prem Lata

 

Become a Member of the new revolution "Consumer Awakening" and instantly expand your knowledge with the Important Landmark Judgements, Laws Laid down by the Supreme Court for Consumer Rights, Get access to hundreds of Featured Articles in 2 different Languages; English and Hindi - a valuable professional resource to draw upon, and a powerful, collective voice to advocate for your protection of rights as a consumer nationwide.

Thank you for your interest in becoming a "Consumer Awakening" Member!
You will find information on Customer Rights, what we're doing and how to become a member. If you are looking forward to become a member of our portal and gain access to Hundreds of Featured Articles which will clearly give you an insight of yoru rights as a Consumer, then Read Further. more detail on our technologies and technology process,