Most Indian consumers do not even understand their rights or their duty to question wrong charges or bad service. A very small number of people push the envelope by fighting dogged battles to create positive case law for consumers. Consider these issues and think about where you stand on them and whether you have ever voiced a protest.
1. Paying for Shopping Bags: Between 2014 and 2018, 127 countries enacted rules to discourage the use of plastic bags which were supported by all right-thinking people. Bags were charged for and it did encourage many more people to begin to carry shopping bags. But shops, stores and malls decided that it was a licence to charge for basic packaging. Many top retailers refused to provide even paper bags, while a few others illegally charged for paper bags as well. Even today, large stores will think nothing of handing you a badly folded outfit that cost you a few thousand rupees without even a basic wrapping, unless you pay for a bag with their logo. Were the rules aimed at fleecing customers, or embarrassing those who may have forgotten to carry a bag? Why don’t the same rules apply to online shopping, where you continue to wrestle your way through loads of bubble wrap and tightly-taped cartons, even for a product that does not warrant such smothering?
How many of us know that multiple consumer court judgements have ruled against charging for bags and have fined large retailers for it? In 2019, the Chandigarh Consumer Commission set the ball rolling by fining Bata India Ltd Rs9,000 for charging Rs3 for a paper bag to carry a shoe box [Dinesh Prasad Raturi vs Bata (India) Ltd. (CC/64/2019)]. On 19 February 2021, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered (More Megastore Retail to refund Rs3 with 12% interest charged to a customer and pay Rs15,000 as compensation. Pertinently, it ruled that selling a bag with the company logo on it was to use the consumer as a tool for advertisement and amounted to a deceptive and unfair trade practice. Bags
logos, it said, should be provided free of cost to customers. [Baglekar Akash Kumar vs More Megastore Retail Ltd., Consumer Case No. 310 of 2019].
Similar cases have been filed against Westside, Lifestyle International, Big Bazaar and others. Providing free carry bags for goods purchased from the same store forms an intrinsic part of the customer-satisfaction criterion under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and, yet, many top retailers are determined to fight the issue all the way to the Supreme Court. What is more worrying is that a majority of us accept the charges uncomplainingly because we blame ourselves for not carrying a shopping bag. In such situations, we are too timid to hold our ground and demand at least a basic paper wrapping because we don't want to be seen throwing a tantrum in a posh store over Rs3 to Rs7 or looking politically incorrect. It allows us to be fleeced.
2. Paying Premium Rates To Call Your Bank or Retailer: Ever since the 1980s, companies were proud of their toll-free 1800 numbers for customer services, complaints or information. Not anymore. In the past decade, banks, retailers (like Big Basket) and many large organisations with a national or international presence have switched to the 1860 series of paid, premium numbers for customer helplines. These charges range from Rs2 to Rs3 per minute and are charged above and beyond even the unlimited payment plans you may have (only Jio claims that it does not charge for 1860 numbers). More companies continue to keep you on hold, force you to listen to advertising messages and, finally, leave your issue unresolved; but you could end up paying as much as Rs10 to Rs50 for the ‘experience’. A chatbot that is equally ineffective or an email that doesn't get an adequate response is our alternative, but less effective
3. Packing Charges at Restaurants: Another charge that we accept without complaint is the usurious packing charges levied by restaurants. Other than cloud kitchens, most restaurants save on service, cleaning and table space on home deliveries. Isn’t the savings much more than what is spent on the packaging? But restaurants have decided that customers, who want the convenience of ordering online from their favourite food outlet and seek quick delivery, are perhaps not price-sensitive. They have got it wrong.
After the National Consumer Helpline (1915) logged over 3,631 complaints about Swiggy and 2,828 for Zomato, the department of consumer affairs (DCA) called a meeting with top food business operators (FBOs) on 13th June. It has asked them to submit a plan for improving grievance redress in 15 days and to show a transparent break-up of packaging charges, delivery charges, surcharges and taxes to customers. In a separate action, the central consumer protection authority (CCPA) has served notices to cab aggregators about customer service and transparency in charges and grievance redress. Usurious ‘convenience fees’ charged for all online bookings without a cap on multiple bookings ought to be next on the list of our complaints.
When did companies switch from ‘Customer is King’ and focusing on enhancing ‘Customer Delight’ to finding ways to hit customers with multiple costs and charges? It has crept on us over the past decade, while we were busy celebrating the convenience of everything online and being lured by endless freebies and coupons from the burn-money available with start-up companies from their venture capitalists.
It is time to reclaim our space as customers by understanding our rights and demanding a fair treatment from banks, retailers and even our government—which has the worst record of pushing us online, loading us with costs and taxes, without adequate grievance redress. The actions of the ministry of consumer affairs show that we need to make it a habit to register a clear and detailed complaint with designated authorities, if we want positive change. We cannot depend on the efforts of a few public-spirited individuals and organisations to do all the hard work for us