Deception, subterfuge, half truths, blatant lies — these are some of the weapons in the marketing arsenal of private service providers today. Many of them seem to outsource their marketing work and either the agents resort to unfair trade practices without the knowledge of the principal or there is a tacit understanding between the two — one makes false promises, which the other obviously does not honour. Ask the service provider and he squarely blames the marketing agency for unethical practices and promises to take action against them. And there the matter ends.

Here are a few samples: a direct sales agent tells the consumer that if he buys the Internet service on that day itself, the company will waive both the installation and registration charges for the connection (DSL). However, when he gets the bill, the consumer finds that he is charged a hefty registration fee. Ask the service centre and you are told that the person who spoke to you may have misled you and that was never part of the deal!

Similarly, the agent gives you a break up of the cost of the service, but there is not even a whisper about the company charging the rental for two months in the first bill. Ask the company for an explanation and you are told that the company always collects one month’s rental in advance. Why wasn’t the consumer told about this? Well, the representative must have forgotten.

Such unfair practices are not restricted to telecommunication companies alone. Even banks selling credit cards are known to employ such tactics to sell the card. At the time of marketing the card, the customer is told by the agent that he will not be charged the annual charges for the first year or for the first two years. But when the consumer gets the bill, he finds that it includes the annual fee! Apparently, the agents of private insurers are also making promises that the insurer is not inclined to keep.

What companies do not know (or pretend not to know )is that they are liable for the action of their agents and they cannot get away by pointing a finger at the agent.. In fact in the case of Indian Airlines vs S.. Seth (FA No. 495 of 1997), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission made it clear that the principal is liable for the action of the agent. The apex consumer court here pointed out that in a number of cases, it had taken decisions based on the law of Contract and contractual terms that no liability can lay on the agent who can neither sue nor be sued and it was the principal (for whom he is acting as an agent) who is answerable.

So my suggestion to consumers is: Whenever you opt for a service, particularly with a private player, a) get the company representative or the agent to put down all the promises on paper. Get his full name, address and signature on that paper; b) if the company does not stick to this promise, sue them. Do not allow them to get away with it; c) also, complain, without fail, to the regulator (telecom/ insurance/ banking) and ask them to take suitable action to prevent such practices.