View 1394 Cases Against Fashion
View 141 Cases Against Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail
Amit Sachdeva filed a consumer case on 01 Oct 2019 against Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/363/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 10 Oct 2019.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No. 363 of 2019
Date of instt.20.06.2019
Date of Decision 01.10.2019
Amit Sachdeva son of Shri Des Raj Sachdeva resident of House no.2276, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal. Mobile no.9254122807.
…….Complainant.
Versus
Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Limited, Pantaloon Division, 98-99, Kunjpura Road, near Civil Hospital Chowk, Karnal,132001, (PANTALOON SHOWROON) through its authorized person.
…..Opposite Party.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.
Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member
Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite party exparte.
(Jaswant Singh President)
ORDER:
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant was in need of some clothes/dress and the complainant saw advertisement of the OP. As per the advertisements of the OP, the branded clothes of OP company were shown as best of class and under the influence of same, the complainant visited the showroom of OP company at Kunjpura Road, Karnal and purchased some clothes on 21.04.2019 after payment of Rs.1354/-. At the time of billing, the person over the cash/billing counter asked to whether shopping bag to carry the said purchased cloth is required to complainant. As the complainant was in need of same because it is quite awkward, if the purchased clothes were carried by complainant in my hands, and complainant asked for a bag to carry the purchased goods/clothes. The person over the counter told that if a bag is required, than complainant has to pay charges for it. As the complainant was in need of same, purchased the shopping bag payment Rs.5/- for that. The complainant got surprised that the supplied purchased bag was printed with the logo of the OP company i.e. PANTALOON. Complainant resisted that if the OP company is charging for the bag than how can they supply a bag that contains advertisement of the company. The person over the counter showed his incapability to answer the genuine question of complainant and told it is policy of the company and he cannot help in this regard and for any further query, complainant must contact to company. The complainant fining no other way paid the charges of bag and returned as it that time, complainant was in need of that bag. After that the complainant contacted the toll free number of the OP company and complained about the advertised chargeable bag supplied to complainant. The person over the contact number told that it is Go Green Policy of company and the bags supplied by company is made up of paper which is environment friendly and actual cost of bag costs to company is very high and only 25% of the cost of bag used to be charged by company from their customers. Complainant resisted that if the bag contains Advertisement of company, than how can company charge for same, but no satisfactory answer had been given. The complainant sent an e-mail to the OP company and complained about same, but also the OP again failed to answer the genuine question of complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 20.08.2019.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 24.09.2019.
4. We have heard the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. The case of the complainant is that he purchased some clothes from the showroom of the OP. Complainant demanded a carry bag for clothes, OP put the clothes in a carry bag which indicates the publicity of the shop of the OP and OP charges Rs.5/- for the said carry bag. In support of his version complainant placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. To rebut the evidence produce by the complainant OP did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. So, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
7. On perusal of the record, we are of the confirmed view that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP in compelling the complainant to purchase the carry bag worth Rs.5/-and if the OP is environmental activist, he should have given the same to the complainant free of cost. It was for gain of OP. By employing unfair trade practice, OP is minting lot of money from all customers.
8. In view of above observations, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.5/- the cost of the carry bag to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.4000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental and physical harassment and litigations expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced:
Dated:01.10.2019
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Vineet Kaushik) (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)
Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.