The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum

CONSUMER RIGHTS
Gap between promise and service
Pushpa Girimaji

At the time of selling credit cards, banks often promise freebies that are not provided later

DECEPTION, subterfuge, half-truths and blatant lies--these are some of the weapons in the marketing arsenal of private service providers today. Many of them outsource their marketing work and either their agents resort to unfair trade practices without the knowledge of the principal party or there is a tacit understanding between the two. One makes (false) promises and the other does not honour them. If the service provider is cornered, he squarely blames the marketing agency for unethical practices and promises to take action against it. And there the matter ends.

Here are a few examples: a direct sales agent promises the consumer that if he buys the Internet service on that day itself, the company will waive both the installation and registration charges for the connection (DSL). However, on getting the bill, the consumer finds that he has been charged a hefty registration fee. On being questioned, the service centre passes the buck to the agent, denying that any such offer was part of the deal.

Similarly, the agent gives the client a break-up of the service charges, but there is not even a mention about the company charging the rental for two months in the first bill. Ask the company for an explanation and you are told that a month’s rental is collected in advance. Why wasn’t the consumer told about this? Well, the onus is put on the representative.

Such unfair practices are not restricted to telecom companies. Even banks selling credit cards are known to employ such tactics. At the time of marketing the card, the agent tells the customer that he will not be charged the annual charges for the first year or two. But when the bill comes, it includes the annual fee. Similarly, there are instances where the consumer is promised several freebies for buying the card. The freebies, however, never materialise. The bank denies making these promises, saying that the agent must have misled the consumer. Apparently, the agents of private insurers also make promises that the insurer is not inclined to keep.

What companies do not know (or pretend not to know) is that they are liable for the action of their agents. In the case of Indian Airlines vs S.N.Seth (FA NO 495 of 1997), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission made it clear that this was the liability of the principal party.

The central issue was whether Indian Airlines could be held liable for the action of its authorised agent. The airline argued that in issuing a wrong ticket, the agent had acted contrary to its instructions and thus was not responsible for any loss to the passenger. The Commission, however, did not accept the defense of the airline.

So my suggestion to consumers is: Whenever you opt for a service, particularly with a private player.

Get the company representative or the agent to make all promises on paper. Get his full name, address and signature on that paper.

If the company does not stick to this promise, sue it. File a class action suit, if a group of consumers is affected.

Also, complain, without fail, to the regulator (telecom or insurance or banking) and demand that suitable action be taken to prevent such practices and protect the interests of consumers.