Conditions Barring Return/Exchange Of Goods On Cash Memos Is Illegal As Per Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Ernakulam District Commission
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held that imposing conditions like, “Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged” on consumers, constitutes unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Department of...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held that imposing conditions like, “Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged” on consumers, constitutes unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Department of Legal Metrology and other relevant departments were requested to conduct periodic inspections of Seller to ensure compliance.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant bought a smartwatch from Swiss Time House (“Seller”). It was bought for Rs. 4,999.5/- with a warranty for defects. Within 7 months of purchase, the watch sustained damage to its glass. The Complainant informed the service department. However, no resolution was provided. After a month of raising the complaint, the Complainant received a message that the watch would be ready after 48 hours. However, after 5 days, the Complainant was informed that the physical damages were impossible to repair. Even after informing about the managerial visit within 2 days, it was communicated to the Complainant that even replacement of the watch was not feasible. The Complainant readily agreed to cover the repair expenses. However, no constructive feedback was provided by the Seller. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”).
The Seller contended that the complaint was filed with malicious intent and lacked legal verification. Further, the manufacturer of the watch was not a party to the case. The damage could be attributed to the Complainant and the warranty did not cover damages caused due to the user's negligence.
Observations of the Commission:
The District Commission perused Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defines 'unfair trade practice' and does not encompass a seller's refusal to service a product which got damaged due to the consumer's negligence. The bench also referred to Section 2(47) of the Act which defines 'warranty'. The warranty explicitly excludes the damages caused by the consumers. From cross-examining the Complainant, the District Commission found that the damages were indeed caused due to the Complainant's negligence. Therefore, the Seller was not held liable for it.
Notably, the District Commission noted that Seller, in the cash memo, declared, “Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged”. The District Commission held that such declarations would constitute unfair trade practice under the Act as they indicate that consumers do not have any recourse for damaged products. It referred to the notification, 'Government Order (P) No. 60/07/F, CS and CA [November 3, 2007]' which prohibits the usage of such declarations on cash memos and bills.
As a result, the copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the Controller of the Legal Metrology Department, State of Kerala, the Commissioner of Kerala GST, and the Services Tax Department to take appropriate measures. They were also suggested to conduct periodic inspections in shops to ensure compliance. The Seller was directed to remove the illegal declaration, “Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged” from its cash memos, invoices, and bills. The complaint was dismissed.
Case Title: Sanjukumar T.S. vs Swiss Time House
Case No.: C.C. No. 197/2022
Advocate for the Complainant: N.A.
Advocate for the Opposite Party: Adv. Joy Joseph
Click Here To Read/Download Order