|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am yet to come across a retailer’s cash receipt that does not contain a condition or two pertaining to the transaction. Conditions, which the retailer believes, would help him or even protect him in case of a consumer dispute. However, consumers have begun to challenge such unfair and unilateral conditions thrust on them and also because the apex consumer court has held that such conditions are not binding. Two decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have made clear that such conditions carry no weight. In case of The Blue Dart Express Limited vs Stephen Livera (RP No 393 of 1997), the apex court held that conditions in small print limiting the liability of a service provider were not valid if the customer’s attention was not drawn towards it and her or his signature obtained to show that the terms had been accepted by her or him. The case pertained to the failure of a courier to deliver an application form for admission to a medical college sent by a student. The apex court pointed out that the conditions printed on the courier’s receipt limiting the liability of the courier in case of non-delivery was in extremely small print. Secondly, there was no signature to show that the customer’s attention had been drawn to the conditions and he had accepted them. The commission reiterated the point yet again in its decision in the case of Tip Top Drycleaners vs Sunil Kumar, (RP No 1328 of 2003). Here too, the central issue was the terms and conditions printed by the drycleaner. The receipt had several conditions printed on the reverse. One of them was that the drycleaner’s liability ceased after two months if delivery was not taken on the due date. There were other conditions too. "In case of fire, theft, misplacement or interchange, the liability of the drycleaner is limited to only 50 per cent of the cost of the clothes." Sunil Kumar, the complainant, had not taken the delivery of clothes that he had given for dry cleaning to Tip Top Drycleaners, Ranchi, on the due date. He had handed over the clothes in April (one piece) and May (13 pieces) 2000. On November 6, when he came to collect the clothes, he found he had insufficient cash with him and so took the delivery of nine pieces and left the remaining five. Meanwhile, on December 4, a fire broke out in on the drycleaner’s premises destroying all the goods, including Kumar’s clothes. When Kumar asked the drycleaner to make good his loss, the drycleaner pointed that the conditions printed on the back of the receipt absolved him of any liability. Subsequently, he paid Kumar Rs 5000 towards the cost of a suit, two coats, onea shirt and a tie claiming that this constituted a "full and final" settlement. Kumar said this was only part of the payment due to him and the drycleaner had gone back on his word that he would settle the amount after the insurance company indemnified his loss. Eventually, Kumar filed a case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi, which asked the drycleaner to pay Rs 15, 350. When the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the dry cleaner’s appeal, he filed a revision petition before the apex court. The court made clear that the drycleaner could not bind the consumer to the terms and conditions printed behind of the receipt. So, instead of banking on the ‘terms and conditions’ printed on receipts for protection, retailers would do well to treat consumers with respect and ensure that they get a fair deal. And in case of a grievance, offer a fair and just in-house settlement. |
