SECONDRY EVIDENCE ENOUGH TO PROVE THE PURCHASE
IN CASE BILL NOT AVAILABLE
Escape rout is often opted by the traders and sellers as and when consumer knocks at the door of consumer court by asking for the bill knowing fully well that bill has not been made compulsory till date in the country. However consumer courts accept the secondary evidence such as –visiting card of the seller showing advance given, any hand written slip by the seller which admits the sale or rendering services.
National commission has recently rejected all such arguments extended by the sellers to rebut the sale of shampoo pouch after expiry date lapsed 5 years ago even when proper bill could not be produced by the complainant
The facts in brief are that Taranjit Kaur a resident of Dhuri village has used a pouch of 9 ml of Pantene Shampoo pouch which her father, Amarjit Singh, had bought. After washing her hair with the shampoo, it got gummed and lost its form. When Singh brought this to the retailer’s notice, he took up the issue with the distributor, and with the manufacturing company, Proctor and Gamble Home Products (P&G). P&G then paid for Taranjit’s one-time hair treatment at Vandana Luthra Care Clinic (VLCC). But Taranjit’s hair could not be brought back to its original form, forcing her to get it removed.
She filed a complaint against P&G, its distributor, the retailer and VLCC for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Sangrur district forum held P&G and the retailer liable and directed them to pay Rs 25,000.
P&G appealed to the Punjab state commission, which dismissed the appeal and directed payment of an additional Rs 2,000.
P&G then approached the National commission in revision, raising legal and technical objections. It claimed that the bill for the purchase had not been produced no testing report was obtained
.National commission after going through the facts before it dismissed the arguments extended by Op’s keeping in view the facts –
- That nothing was left in the pouch after use which could be sent for testing.
- The facts clearly revealed that the opposite party had admitted the fault by providing the consumer treatment with VLCC. It was only the situation when damaged hair could not be restored to the original state and complainant under the circumstances had to cut all hair and she filed a case before the consumer forum. There was no denial of the damage due to expired shampoo
- That Procter and Gamble did not file any report by testing similar pouches, which could prove that the shampoo was not spurious.
Dr Prem Lata