|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recently, a study commissioned by the Reserve Bank of India on small denomination coins emphasised once again the passive nature of the clients and their unwillingness to "displease" traders. Here, the reference was to overcharging by traders on the pretext of not having small change, and the people accepting such exploitation without protest. Even today, the attitude has not changed vis-`E0-vis the traders, and I find the same hesitation when it comes to demanding and getting a receipt for the money paid towards purchases. From my interactions with various customers, I find three main reasons for this phenomenon: (a) The unfailing trust in the retailer; (b) the fear of offending the retailer; and (c) the desire to evade taxes. The last one is usually prompted by the retailer, who tries to avoid issuing a cash receipt by pointing out that the shopper has to pay more if he or she wants a receipt. The consequences of such behaviour is best explained with a recent case of a person, who bought furniture worth Rs 25,000 from a shop in Gurgaon, Haryana, a couple of months ago. Soon after delivery, she noticed small bubbles appearing on the top layer of the furniture. Soon the surface started peeling and looked ugly. When the furniture shop owner turned a deaf ear to her complaints, she decided to teach the shopkeeper a lesson by filing a complaint before the court. That’s when she came to know that she could not utilise the consumer protection law for getting a replacement or a refund because she had no proof of purchase. She says the shop owner was so gentle and courteous at the time of the purchase that she trusted him completely and never imagined a situation like the one she was in. Second, he told her that she would unnecessarily be paying about Rs 3,000 as taxes if he issued her a receipt, and so she did not insist on it. This case reminds me of a more or less similar case recounted by a member of the district forum many years ago. The complaint pertained to a pair of expensive but defective shoes, but the person had no receipt. However, the forum could see that the shoe was new and that it was defective and, most important, the shoe carried the full name and address of the retail outlet. So on the basis of that the court asked the shopkeeper to replace the shoes. But in this case, the client tells me that there is no label to indicate the source of the furniture, nor any other proof that it was purchased recently. What I have recounted is not a rare incident. I have myself seen the way some of the shopkeepers behave. They just jot down on a piece of paper the amount due from you for a product. If you insist on a receipt, they take out their visiting card, staple it to the piece of paper and tell you that it would suffice. The next step is to "warn" you that your insistence on a cash receipt will mean that you will end up paying more for the product because of the imposition of taxes. If you persist, they will reluctantly take out a receipt book from a draw and write out a receipt. So insist on it, and do not buy goods from a shop that does not give you a proper receipt with its name and address duly printed on it. You can also complain about such shops to the excise and taxation department of your state. Remember, by not taking a cash memo, you may save a small amount in taxes, but if something were to go wrong, what you will lose is your right to redress, and that could well be a huge loss.
|
||
|
|
||
At
regular intervals, the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs issues
advertisements urging consumers to collect, without fail, cash
receipts for their purchases. Yet, I find people ignoring this advice
despite the fact that it goes against their interest. A study
conducted by the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) had
pointed out that Indian consumers never demanded and collected cash
memos after they paid for the goods.