|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LENGTHY, computer-generated supermarket bills are really a pain to read. But don’t let that discourage you from scrutinising the bill because there could well be mistakes in billing—errors that could work to the advantage of the retailer. The way they are printed, these bills are certainly not consumer friendly. The print is generally small and there is no line space between items. But that’s not all. There are several other factors that contribute to customers generally ignoring the details in the bill. For example, unlike the neighbourhood grocery store, these supermarkets store a wide range of products—vegetables, groceries, clothes, electronic goods, cosmetics and utensils. And thanks to the display, the discounts and the buy-one, get-one-free offers, clients invariably end up buying much more than what they wanted. So, this makes the bill unusually long. Also, most supermarkets do not have adequate number of counters for billing and payments (or not all of them will be operational), and as a result, clients end up waiting a long time at the billing counter. Untrained staff make matters worse. For example, when they are scanning multiple, identical items, they can scan one item to get the product code, and then enter the number of items—this will cut down on billing time. Instead, they scan them individually, thereby wasting the time of the consumer. Then sometimes there are also delays caused by computer snags or some missing product code. So by the time the process of billing and payment is completed, all that the customer wants is to exit from the outlet.But some clients who do check the bills diligently have come across some instances of excess billing. Sometimes, the loss in such cases to an individual consumer may be just one or two rupees, but to customers as a class, the loss would be enormous, taking into consideration the volume of business conducted at such outlets. Recently, a consumer disputes redressal forum in Bangalore dealt with one such complaint. Here it was not just a case of overcharging, but also of the store not bothering to respond to the complaint pertaining to excess billing. According to the complainant, Durga Mohan, he had found the store charging Rs 2 to Rs 3 more on the MRP on a couple of occasions, and when this was pointed out, the excess amount was returned to him, saying that it was a typographical error. But the retail outlet made no effort to prevent recurrence. On November 22 last year, he bought some groceries, amounting to Rs 1006. On cross-checking the bill after returning home, he found that he was charged Rs 84 for a packet of sugar, while the MRP mentioned on the package was Rs 23. He also found that even though the packets mentioned the price as inclusive of all taxes, he was charged VAT/tax at 4 per cent and 12.5 per cent. The consumer immediately went back to the shop and pointed out the mistake, but the retail outlet, instead of apologising and returning the excess amount, said the person concerned was not available, and they would get back to him the next day. They even took his telephone number, but did not keep up the promise. Exasperated, he filed a case before the district forum. While ordering a compensation of Rs 25,000 and imposing punitive damages to the tune of Rs 25,000 on the store, the forum pointed out that charging more than the MRP was an unfair trade practice. But here, even after the inaccuracy in the bill was pointed out, the store did not immediately refund the money, but instead harassed the client, forcing him to visit the store again and again. This constituted deficiency in service. (Durga Mohan vs Smart Retail Pvt Ltd; complaint No 2659 of 2008, decided on May 29, 2009.) So, do exercise patience when it comes to long bills and check them. That will force retail outlets to be more careful when it comes to billing.
|
|||
|
|
|||
