Issuing poorly printed receipts/ bills amounts to deficiency of service: Kerala consumer forum

A consumer forum in Kerala recently observed that issuing poorly printed bills or receipts constitutes ‘deficiency of service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. [MS Sajeev Kumar v. Hewlett-Packard Global Soft Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.]

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam noted that the Kerala State Department of Consumer Affairs, in an order issued in July 2019, mandates that all government, public and private entities should provide bills that are both legible and durable.

The department highlights the issuing poorly printed bulls may constitute a ‘deficiency of service’ and an ‘unfair trade practice’ as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, it is compulsory for all government, public sector, and private organisations in Kerala to issue bills that are clearly printed on high quality paper using superior ink, ensuring their longevity and readability,” the commission stated.

The commission also noted that providing proper receipts is necessary as per the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 and the Consumer Protection (General) Rules, 2020.

It went on to emphasise that including clear terms and conditions in a legible manner is crucial for protecting consumer rights stating,

“This inclusion is crucial for ensuring consumers’ rights to be informed about the prices of products or services they purchase or hire. It also provides them with documentary evidence to support claims in Consumer Commissions, establishing that they have indeed bought the products or hired services from a specific trader or service provider.”

The order was passed by a bench consisting of president DB Binu and members V Ramachandran and Sreevidhia TN.

The commission made these observations while considering a complaint filed by a lawyer, MS Sajeev Kumar, after a Hewlett-Packard (HP) laptop he purchased from a Reliance Digital store started malfunctioning. Upon contacting Reliance Digital, he was directed to an authorised service centre of HP and his keyboard was replaced. However, the laptop’s performance deteriorated after a few months.

Kumar said that his requests for replacing the laptop were rejected by the service centre, citing a 14-day replacement policy. In his complaint before the consumer forum, he contended that the laptop should have been replaced as it was still within the one-year warranty period.

He therefore sought compensation from HP to the tune of ₹1 lakh as well as ₹25,000 towards cost of the proceedings.

It was while considering the material placed on record by Kumar that the consumer forum noticed the poorly printed tax invoice.

Since HP, Reliance Digital and the service centre did not present their versions despite being issued notice, the court found no reason to disbelieve Kumar’s submissions.

Accordingly, it issued an ex-parte order directing HP to replace the laptop with a new unit of the model that Kumar had purchased. If replacement is not possible, the purchase price is to be refunded. It also directed HP to issue legible and durable bills prepared in quality printing ink on good quality papers.

HP, Reliance Digital, and the service centre were directed to pay ₹50,000 for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices committed by them as well as the mental agony, physical hardships, damages including loss of work and inconvenience caused to Kumar. A further ₹20,000 was ordered to be paid as cost of proceedings.

The three parties were held to be jointly and severally responsible for these two payments.