Law Watch
Sale of contaminated fruits and consumer rights
Oli Md. Abdullah Chowdhury
Before the advent of consumerism; the maxim of “Caveat emptor” tacitly warns the buyers that the sellers are not bound to volunteer negative information about the items they are selling. The basic premise of this ancient law maxim is that buyers are primarily responsible to examine obvious defects and imperfections of the goods. Caveat emptor still applies even if the purchase is "as is" or when a defect is obvious upon reasonable inspection before purchase. However, the seller is now held to a higher standard of disclosure than "buyer beware" and has responsibility for defects which a buyer cannot note by casual inspection.
The modern trend in laws protecting consumers has largely minimized the importance of this rule. Although the buyer is still required to make a reasonable inspection of goods upon purchase, increased responsibilities have been placed upon the seller. On the other hand, the doctrine of caveat venditor (Latin for "let the seller beware") has become more prevalent. Generally, there is a legal presumption that a seller makes certain warranties unless the buyer and the seller agree otherwise. One such warranty is the implied warranty of merchantability. Sellers in Bangladesh seldom think of merchantability and consumers are often left at the mercy of sellers even when buying food items.
Recently, High Court has given the government six directives to stop sale of fruits treated with chemicals endangering public health. The bench of justices A H M Shamsuddin Chowdhury and Gobinda Chandra Tagore gave the order on May 26 upon an appeal from an organisation. The court directed the Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution (BSTI) and RAB to keep the fruit markets and warehouses under surveillance and take legal action against offenders.
In Bangladesh, Consumer Rights Protection Act (CRPA) was enacted in 2009. However, the act categorically limits the right of consumers to seek justice. Under the law, an unhappy consumer will not be able to file allegation directly to a magistrate seeking justice. It is mandatory for the aggrieved person to get permission from the National Consumer Rights Protection Directorate in order to lodge a complaint.
According to the CRPA, an aggrieved consumer will have to seek approval from the Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection within 30 days of feeling cheated or victimised. The law has kept the provision to charge as much as Tk 2 lakh in fine or three years in jail or both for the traders adulterating food and medicine or cheating people by any means.
It has been a growing trend among a group of sellers to cheat consumers with contaminated fruits when summer comes. In the last summer also, the High Court Division asked authorities including BSTI and RAB to monitor fruit depots in Dhaka in order to prevent the sale of contaminated fruits. The court also asked everyday for tests of fruits to be conducted at wholesale depots in the capital.
To sum up, permanent solution is needed to make an end of selling contaminated fruits. If regular testing takes place at depots, it would largely help prevent contaminated fruits from entering into retail market. Full implementation of the Consumer Rights Protection Act (CRPA) would also contribute in reversing the trend of selling contaminated fruits.
Oli Md. Abdullah Chowdhury is a human rights worker.
