BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-36/2019
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy,Member (W).
Rashmi Ranjan Rout, aged about 49 years,
S/O-Late Pitambar Rout,
R/O- Qr No-F/S/2, Hindalco Colony,Hirakud,
P.O/P.S-Hirakud,Dist-Sambalpur. …..Complainant
Vrs.
- Store Inchrage,
Big Bazar(Future Ratail Ltd),
Farm Road,P.O-Modipara,P.S-Town,
Dist- Sambalpur-768002.
- Chief Executive Officer,
Big Bazar(Future Group),
Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar,
Off Jogeswari,-Vikhorli Link Road,
Jogeswari East,,Mummbai-400060.….. O.Ps
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant:- Sri R.L Sharma,Advocate & Associates.
- For the O.P-1&2 :- Sri P.K.Sahu, Advocate & Associates
DATE OF HEARING : 17.03.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 13.04.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant on dtd 17.05.2019 had been to purchase domestic articles such as ladies kurti, paizama, udhani and leggings etc. from the O.P. amounting Rs.2673/- The article were put in to a carry bag by the staff of the O.P-1 and after preparing bill handed over to the Complainant. The Complainant after perusal of the bill noticed that the O.P-1 has charged Rs.20/- for the carry bag. The Complainant protested against the excess billing of Rs.20/- and the staff did not respond but replied that they are instructed by the O.P-1 & 2.The Complainant finding no other way compelled pay the price towards the Carry Bag. As the Complainant cannot carry the items in hand the O.P-1 has to provide carry bag free of cost. Again the Carry Bag contains the advertisement of big bazaar and the complainant served as a advertising agent for the O.Ps. The O.Ps has several stores all over India and the y are illegally collecting huge money in this way. The O.Ps are forcing the Customers to pay extra charges for carry bag. When the Complainant protested the illegal act the staff of the O.P-1 misbehaved the Complainant using unparliamentarily languages, which was intolerable. Due to this activities of the O.Ps customers are falling in financial loss and are being harassed unnecessarily. Hence the O.Ps has 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.Ps denies the allegations of the Complainant stating that the Complainant has filed a xerox copy of bill with no name of the purchaser. The O.p-1 has not compelled to purchase the carry bag rather he might have opted for the same. The Complainant is bound to pay for the articles purchase from the O.P-1 including the price of the carry bag and there is no rule anywhere to supply carry bag free of cost. He denies the allegation of misbehaviour shown by the staff. There were two types of Carry bags and one of them is printed with the logos of the O.Ps. In this way the O.Ps denied almost all the allegations made against him which are supported with written arguments and prayed this dismiss this case as the questions to its maintainability.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Unfair Trade Practice as well as Restrictive Trade Practice to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchase from the O.Ps on payment of money. Again the O.P-1 has taken Rs.20/- towards the charges of Carry Bag which is an unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps. In the case of Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) vs Sahil Dawar on 22 December, 2020 by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi it is observed that, purchase of carry bags is made optional & voluntary but at the same time, the consumer / customer is not allowed to enter the shop with their own carry bags containing some goods purchased from other shop premises. We cannot expect that for every single item/article intended to be purchased by a customer, he/she needs to carry separate carry bags. For e.g. if a customer wants to purchase, say about 15 in number, daily-use goods/articles like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad, soap, toothpaste, shaving cream, pen, pencil etc., from different shops, we cannot expect him/her to take 15 carry bags from home, for the same. Thus, by not allowing the customers to carry their own carry bags by the appellant in its premises, there was no option left with them to buy the carry bags along with the goods purchased, to carry the same from the shop-premises. 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 can be said to have adopted Unfair Trade Practice.
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are jointly and severally 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.Ps 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 of thereof.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 13th day ofApril, 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
I agree,
-Sd/- -Sd/-
MEMBER(W). PRESIDENT.
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
-Sd/-
PRESIDENT.
