In disputes, receipts the most vital proof of purchase
DESPITE CAMPAIGNS BY UNION MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF COLLECTING A CASH RECEIPT, CONSUMERS CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS ALLIMPORTANT PROOF OF PURCHASE
I get a number of complaints from consumers about their purchases going wrong. There are complaints of floor tiles turning out to be defective, poor quality furniture, sub-standard electronic goods, to name a few. And in almost all these cases, I find that the consumer has either not collected the cash receipt at all or has lost it. In one particular case, the consumer paid for a washing machine that was never delivered. The consumer says that the day he made the payment, the shop was very crowded and the dealer promised to have the machine delivered the next day and with it, the bill and the warranty card too. So he never asked for a cash receipt. Now the dealer is saying he never paid him.
If only the consumer had paid by credit or debit card or an account payee cheque, or had collected the receipt, this problem would not have arisen. It’s indeed sad that despite sustained campaigns by the Union ministry of consumer affairs on the importance of collecting a cash receipt, consumers continue to ignore this all-important proof of purchase. Several studies on consumer behaviour show Indian consumers by and large are very passive and do not demand receipts as a matter of right.
I recall one of the earliest disputes that came up before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein the consumer said the shopkeeper had never delivered the electronic goods ordered by him, while the retailer argued that they were promptly delivered to his address. Eventually, the consumer won the case and got back his money — ₹23,000 along with 16.5 per cent interest — only because he had paid by demand draft.
Here, the case was decided on the basis of two important pieces of evidence: (1) a confirmation by the bank that the draft had indeed been issued by the customer and encashed by the retailer; (2) absence of any proof on the part of the dealer to show delivery of the goods to the consumer. He claimed that he had delivered the goods to a person by the name of Birbal, but could not produce any signed delivery note or a letter from the consumer authorising someone else to collect the goods on his behalf. (Electronics and Electronics vs Net Ram and others, decided in 1990)
In Sunder Kashyap vs N Palta, decided by the apex consumer court in 1993, the dispute revolved around whether the complainant had paid ₹90,000 to the opposite party — a property dealer — as earnest money towards the purchase of a flat in Delhi. Even though the complainant produced a stamped receipt signed by the dealer, the latter claimed that it was not his signature at all. He also pointed out that the receipt did not have the signature of a witness.
Now if only the consumer had not paid by cash, this dispute would never have arisen. Anyway, after prolonged deliberations, the National Commission concluded that the complainant had indeed made the payment, but this is a classic example of what could go wrong in cash transactions if there is no adequate proof of payment.
So avoid cash payment. Pay through credit or debit card or issue an account payee cheque. You can even write the purpose for which the payment is being made on the back of the cheque. Always insist on a receipt for payments made. Many shopkeepers insist on issuing what they call a “kuchcha bill”. Do not accept such receipts. Ask for a proper bill with the retailer’s name and address, and get him to fill in the details of the transaction and sign on it. Remember, in case of a dispute, you need a proof of purchase.