Free gifts are your prerogative, demand them

Pushpa Girimaji

The large grocery store that I go to every month has this habit of not giving the free products that sometimes come with toiletries and other such goods. Last month, for example, when I came home and opened my package, I found that he had not given a lip balm that was given free with a body moisturiser. The previous month I did not get a small glass bowl offered with a packet of paneer. Whenever I complain, they apologise and blame it on the store attendants. The free items may not be very expensive, but I do feel that the store’s behaviour is wrong and unethical. Does this come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act?

The retailer’s behaviour of withholding the promised free product or offering a gift with the intention of not providing them, constitutes unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act and a consumer has the right to seek redress against any loss or suffering caused as a result of such practice. Besides, the store is liable for the behaviour of its employees.

Have any consumers taken the retailer to court on a matter like this? Here I am not referring to expensive gifts that are promised on purchase of consumer durables during Diwali and such other occasions, but small, relatively inexpensive products that accompany goods such as toiletries.

Please do not feel apologetic about the fact that the free items accompanying toiletries and other such goods are not very expensive. Whatever their declared price, the manufacturer is offering it to you free of cost with the purchase of another product and you have a right to that item and the retailer has a duty to pass it on to you. If it is a rare occurrence, one can believe that it was an inadvertent mistake, but when it happens regularly, one sees a design behind it.

I must admit that consumer courts have dealt with many complaints of retailers or manufacturers not giving the promised gifts, but in most cases, they pertain to expensive items. However, I recently came across a case like yours. Here, the complaint S. Jayaraman of Tamil Nadu was that the store did not give him a Vim Gel worth Rs20 offered by the manufacturer along with a bottle of Domex. He insisted that the store deliver it to him at his doorstep as it was their fault, but the store refused. Aggrieved, he filed a complaint demanding a compensation of Rs20,000 and costs of Rs5000 from the store.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held it to be a deficient service and directed the store to pay the consumer, Rs2,500 towards costs and travelling expenses ( perhaps for collecting the Vim Gel from the store, it is not clear from the order). However, it did not award any compensation to the consumer and only directed the store to pay for its unfair trade practice, Rs5000 to the Consumer Legal Services of the District Forum. The appeal filed by the consumer against this order was dismissed in default by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission because the consumer failed to appear.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in its revisional jurisdiction, only looks at the limited question of whether there was any miscarriage of justice or material irregularity in the order of the lower consumer courts. So it held that there was no infirmity in the orders of the lower consumer courts , warranting its interference and dismissed it (S. Jayaraman Vs Proprietor/Manager, Sri Kannan Departmental Store, Tamil Nadu, RP No 2566 of 2017, order dated Nov 4, 2019).

The facts of your case are different. Here,  the retailer has regularly been failing to hand over the free gift — seems like this is a pattern  — and worse, he is not responding positively to your complaints and giving you the free items either. It is possible that he is behaving in this fashion with other customers too. Check with your friends in the neighbourhood whether they have had similar experience. If they have had, then it will strengthen your case further. In the end, I must say that the compensation provided depends on the facts of the case and how the District Forums look at such unethical behaviour.