BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-35/2019
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy,Member (W).
Gopal Prasad Lal, aged about 51 years,
S/O-Late Satya Narayan Prasad Lal,
By profession –Advocate,
R/O- At Pandit Dindayal Nagar,Burla,
P.O/P.S-Burla,Dist-Sambalpur. …..Complainant
Vrs.
- Go-Cool Khana Foods,
At-Daily Market Burla,P.O/P.O-Burla,
Dist-Sambalpur
Being represented by its owner
Ashok Kumar Agrawal and Amit Kumar Agrawal.
- Ashok Agrawal,
Owner of Go-Cool
At-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur
- Amit Kumar Agrawal,
Owner of Go-Cool,
At-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant:- Sri S.K.Mohanty, Advocate & Associates.
- For the O.P-1 :- None.
- For the O.P-2 :- None
- For the O.P-3 :- None.
DATE OF HEARING : 23.02.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 03.03.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant has visited with his daughter to Go-Cool Khana Foods situated at daily market Burla under district Sambalpur on dtd. 29.06.2019 and purchased “Bread Kulcha Masala” and “Bread Masala”. The complainant placed order and after 10 minutes of waiting, the person sitting at the Counter of The O.P-1 handed over the food items in a carry bag bearing the advertisement of the O.P-1. The Complainant after taking delivery of the food items paid the bill and collected the bill/ invoice and on reaching home he found that the O.P-1 has charged Rs.5/- towards the carry bag which is a unfair trade practice. The Complainant had immediately made contact with the cashier of the O.P-1 and explained him about the guidelines of the Govt. to not to charge extra amount for the carry bag but the cashier ignored him with harsh words for which the Complainant felt humiliated. The O.P-1 has compelled to purchase the carry bag and use him as an advertising agent of the O.P-1. The O.P-1 has other outlet in the Sambalpur town being run by the O.P-2 & 3 under the supervision of O.P-1. The O.Ps have committed Unfair Trade Practice to the Complainant for which they needs to be penalised and the Complainant may be compensate as per the relief prayed.
The O.P-1,2 & 3, despite of service of notice they did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P-1,2 &3 as ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted ex-parte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the O.Ps have committed any Unfair Trade Practice as well as Restrictive Trade Practice to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on record we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased Bread Kulcha Masala and Bread Masala from the O.P-1 on payment of consideration.
Again the O.P-1 has taken Rs.5/- towards the charges of Carry Bag which is an unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P-1. As per Rule-10 of “The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011”, no carry bags were to be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers but thereafter, in the year 2016, the aforesaid Rules were amended vide notification dated 18.03.2016 to be read as Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016. The Rule-15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016 was omitted vide subsequent Notification dated 27.03.2018 and as such, the O.P-1cannot take shelter of the said rule. Since the mandate for retailers to charge for plastic carry bags has been omitted in March 2018, therefore, its contention that it could charge for paper carry bags is totally against law and has no legs to stand. The said carry bag held by the Complainant is a printed carry bag on both sides, which has a prominent display of the advertisement of the O.P-1 and is thus apparently serving as an advertisement for it, whenever the said bag is carried by the Consumer. In this manner, the Complainant and other gullible consumers like her has certainly been taken for a ride by the Opposite Party for advertising its name. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Westside, A Unit Of Trent Limited vs. Sapna Vasudev” decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, on 8 April, 2019. Also reliance can be placed on the judgments in the case of Bata India Limited vs. Dinesh Parshad Raturi on 22 July, 2019 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh. Hence the O.P-1can be said to have adopted unfair trade practice. The allegations against the O.P-2 & 3 are not established and they are discharged from the liabilities. So we order as under:-
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-1 is directed to (Rupees Five Thousand)(Rupees Two Thousand)All the orders are to be complied within 30 (Thirty ) days of receipt of this copy of order failing which the O.P-1 are liable to pay penal interest of 9% per annum on the above amounts.
Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 03rd day ofMarch, 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
I agree,
-sd/-(03.03.2021) -sd/-(03.03.2021)
Smt. S.Tripathy Sri. D.K. Mohapatra
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
-sd/-(03.03.2021)
Sri. D.K. Mohapatra
PRESIDENT
