This Diwali, whether you are painting your house, buying curtains or furniture or ordering some special clothes for the festive occasion, or even buying household goods, remember one thing: whenever you make a payment, be it in full or in part, collect the receipt immediately and without fail. You may know the dealer or the service provider very well and he may be an honest person, but he may well forget that you have made the payment, thereby leading to a dispute later. Or you may be dealing with a dishonest person who may deny having taken the money from you. So in order to protect your interests in any transaction, make sure that the payment made is recorded in writing.

In addition to that, I would suggest that you also make payments ? particularly if the amounts are big ? through account payee cheques. Later, this will give you double protection in case of any dispute over payment.

Take the case of Mr Sunil that came up before the apex consumer court recently. On March 14, 2002, Mr Sunil placed an order for a sofa set and a tea table and paid as advance, Rs 10,000 towards it. He even purchased a suitable cloth for the sofa cover for Rs 3,480, as suggested by the furniture shop owner and made the payment. He was promised that the sofa would be delivered within 15 days. However, the promised delivery did not happen, not even after several reminders. Exasperated, Mr Sunil eventually asked the shopkeeper to return his money and that’s when the dispute really started. The shopkeeper flatly refused to give back any money and said, in the first place, he was not even given any advance!

Eventually Mr Sunil had to seek the help of the consumer court to get back his money and what helped him was the cheque payment that he had made. Said the apex consumer court: “the statement of bank account (that the consumer produced) came from the books of accounts maintained during the banking hours and as such covered by the Bankers Books Evidence Act. The presumption of its correctness and regularity had to be taken into consideration... ”

It therefore dismissed the revision petition filed by the shopkeeper arguing that he had not been paid any money by the consumer and asked him to pay back the advance as well as the cost of the fabric to Mr Sunil. (Nandlal vs Sunil revision petitioner no 2139 of 2005, decided on September 9, 2005)