All’s not fair in trade

Pushpa Girimaji

Last year, I bought six synthetic fibre filled pillows. At the time of purchase, the shopkeeper assured me that the pillows are washable and I could wash them in the washing machine and then dry them on a flat surface. He told me several times that the pillows would remain as good as new even after washing and I should not hesitate to wash them. Last week, as suggested, I put them in the washing machine and dried them on a flat surface. The effect of washing was devastating on the pillows. It got all lumpy and was so uncomfortable that I had to buy new pillows. The label on the pillow says that it is machine washable. I took it back to the shopkeeper, but he refused to take any responsibility for it. What should I do?

This is a clear case of misrepresentation by the retailer as well as the manufacturer because, firstly, the manufacturer’s label says that it is machine washable. Secondly, the retailer assured you that the pillow will be ‘as good as new’ if you washed them. Both turned out to be false and the pillows became unusable after a wash. Such misrepresentation comes under the definition of ‘unfair trade practice’ as per the Consumer Protection Act.

The Consumer Protection Act describes an unfair trade practice as a practice “which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice….”

The law also gives the consumer, who is a victim of an unfair trade practice, the right to seek redress, including compensation for any loss or injury caused as a result. 

Please do write to the manufacturer as well as the shopkeeper, emphasising these points and ask for a replacement free of cost. Hopefully, the manufacturer and the retailer will comply. In fact, it does not cost them much to comply. But if they fail to do so, they will end up paying a hefty fee to their lawyer when they have to face you in the consumer court. The company will also get bad publicity when you warn other consumers on the social media about this particular brand of pillows and the false claims made by them.

Are you aware of any consumer court orders in a similar case?

Such a case may have come up before the consumer courts at the district level, but I am not aware of it. However, there are a number of cases pertaining to false promises or false assurances and they would apply to your case too. I must say that, in the recent times, the consumer courts have taken a very serious view of false promises and assurances made by the manufacturers and the loss or injury caused to consumers as a result.

In your case, for example, you may not have chosen this particular brand if there was no assurance from the manufacturer that the product was machine washable. In other words, the company lured you into buying their product by making a false promise, thereby causing you financial loss and harassment. So you have every right to demand not just a refund, but also compensation and costs of litigation. You must also ask the consumer court to direct the pillow manufacturer to desist from making such false claims and also make it clear to consumers through advertisements and boards at the retail outlets that the pillow is not to be washed as it becomes unusable after that. They must offer a refund to all those consumers who have bought the pillow on the basis of that promise.

In Bonn Nutrients Pvt Ltd Vs Jagpal Singh Dara, for example, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed in its order of May 18, 2005, that making a false promise to sell a product was clearly an unfair trade practice and compensation in such cases should be exemplary. In this case (iv (2005) CPJ 108 (NC)), the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission enhanced the compensation from Rs 5,000 to Rs 50,000. In response to the manufacturer’s appeal protesting the enhancement, the apex consumer court said that the compensation was by no stretch of imagination, excessive and that the damages to be awarded by courts in such cases should be exemplary.