Box full of empty promises

 Pushpa Girimaji

A couple of months ago, I ordered artificial jewellery from a teleshopping network. The television channel had shown five sets of jewellery, which comprised a total of 15 pieces (each set had earrings, a necklace and a bracelet) for Rs 2,500. However, when the packet was delivered, I found only four sets inside. When I complained, the channel first said that all the five sets were sent and when I persisted, those in charge said that they are not responsible for non-delivery or defects in the goods ordered and that I should contact the supplier.   

The supplier hasn’t responded to my complaints.  What should I do? Is the teleshopping channel not responsible for sending less than what was promised?

Of course, the TV channel is accountable. It was the teleshopping network that showed the pieces of jewellery and promised five sets for Rs 2,500. As you said, you made the payment too to the channel and you had no contact with the supplier. So, the network can’t abdicate its responsibility and hold the supplier accountable now. 

I would suggest, as a first step, register your complaint with the National Consumer Helpline, run by the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs. They may be able to resolve the issue with the TV channel. If you log on to nationalconsumerhelpline.in, you will find a provision to register your complaint. It might work and you don’t have to go to the consumer court.

Suppose I do have to go to the consumer court, can the television channel claim that they are not responsible?

No, they cannot say that. In fact, refer to this decision of the Apex Consumer Court or the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in an almost similar case. Even though this was order, decided way back in 2002, it is still relevant.

The complaint of LK Pandya in this case has its origin in an order for jewellery placed with a teleshopping network in 1995, after paying Rs 8,200 through demand draft. In return, he got three boxes by post. While one contained small earrings costing Rs 601 and a silver coin, the other packet had a bill from the jeweller and coins worth Rs 2.50. Since, this was not what he had ordered, he did not even bother to open the third box and immediately sent a complaint to the jeweller as well as the television network. Neither of the parties replied, forcing him to appraoch the consumer court. He demanded a refund of Rs 8,200, besides Rs 26,000 towards compensation and Rs 1,500 towards costs.

 As in your case, here too, the TV channel argued that it cannot be held liable for non-receipt of goods because it was neither the supplier nor the manufacturer of the jewellery and no payment or consideration had been received by it. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, however, dismissed that argument and pointed out that through its advertisement, the teleshopping network had  promised to supply the goods and on the basis of this  promise, the complainant had booked the order from his home in Chandrapur and had even received a letter  promising prompt delivery. 

However, the network had failed to ensure the delivery of the promised jewellery and was therefore guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Forum  asked the teleshopping network to  pay Rs 34,700 along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum, calculated  from November 10,  1995 till the date of payment. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission too pointed out that the television shopping network had acted for and on behalf of the jeweller and offered the product through its advertisement on TV. Thus, it cannot now escape liability for non-receipt of goods.

The Apex Consumer Court too concurred. It observed that when the consumer complained, the television channel should have immediately resolved his grievance, but failed to do so, despite the insurance cover. It was therefore not only guilty of an unfair trade practice, but also deficiency in service. (Asian Sky Shop vs LK Pandya,  R.P.No 986 of 2002, decided on 15-7-2002)