BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.430 of 2019
Date of Instt. 20.09.2019
Date of Decision: 25.04.2022
Harpreet Singh Sandhu S/o Sh. Baljinder Singh, Resident of House No.210, Chotti Baradari, Part II, Jalandhar-144001
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited, Pantaloons Division, through its Manager, Curo Mall, 66 Feet Road Village Lohara Nangal, Urban Estate Phase II, Jalandhar.
2. The Manager, Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited, Pantaloons Division, Curo Mall, 66 Feet Road, Village Lohara Nangal, Urban Estate Phase II, Jalandhar.
3. The Managing Director, Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited, Pantaloons Division, 7th Floor, Skyline Icon Business Park, 86-92, Off A. K. Road Marol Village Andheri (East) Mumbai-400059.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Smt. Leena Sehgal, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Sumit Verma, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 to 3.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that on 16.08.2019 the complainant purchased goods from the OPs vide receipt no.P153001I19004025 for the amount of Rs.704/-. The OPs have charged Rs.5/- for carry bag an illegal manner. The complainant requested the official of OPs that he cannot charge the amount for carry bag as the same is unfair trade practice but the person sitting on cash counter misbehaved with the complainant and openly told him that if he dare to take any action he would face the dire consequences. The name of the carry bag has been mentioned PTNS PARBAG and when it was objected by the complainant then the official of the OPs No.1 & 2 openly told that this is system generated name of the carry bag. Moreover, the name of Pantaloon was also endorsing its brand on the Carry Bag which was not justified. The OPs have charged the excessive amount on the pretext of “Carry Bag” not only from the complainant but the said charges are also being levied from all the customers illegally and the same amounts to unfair trade practice. There is a great deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the OPs and due to that the complainant has suffered a great mental agony and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of Carry Bag illegally charged i.e. Rs.5/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of realization and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as a compensation for causing mental tension, pain, agony to the complainant and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is false and vexatious and an attempt to malign the reputation of the OPs. It is further averred that the complaint is not tenable in the eyes of law as the complainant has grossly failed to show any cause of action against the OPs. The present complaint is based on false pleas and misrepresentations and thus, deserves to be dismissed outrightly. It is further averred that the paper bags are purchased by the OPs and such bags costs the OPs. It is further averred that there is no legal/statutory obligation on the OPs to provide any bag to carry purchased item for free to its customers. On merits, the factum in regard to purchasing the goods by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the OP has charged Rs.5/- for carry bag, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by counsel for both the parties as well as case file very minutely.
6. In its written argument, OPs have referred the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 975 of 2020, the Hon’ble Commission directed the opposite parties to discontinue its unfair trade practice of arbitrarily and highhandedly imposing additional cost of carry bags on the consumer at the time of making payment. Relevant part of the judgment is appended below:-
"In the instant case, arbitrarily and highhandedly deviating from its past practice, deviating from the normal, not giving adequate prominent prior notice or information to the consumer before a he makes his choice of patronizing the retail outlet, and before he makes his selection for purchase, imposing additional cost of carry bags at the time of making payment, after the selection has been made, forcing carry bags without disclosing their salient specifications at price as fixed by the Opposite Party Co., putting the consumer to embarrassment and harassment, burdening the consumer with additional cost, in such way and manner, is decidedly unfair and deceptive
As a matter of Consumer Rights, Rights, the consumer has the right to know that there will be an additional cost for carry bags (the same being a deviation from the normal wont in retail outlets in general), and also to know the salient specifications and price of the carry bags, before he exercises his choice of patronizing a particular retail outlet and before he makes his selection of goods for purchase from the said retail outlet
The Opposite Party Co. through its Chief Executive is ordered under Section 39(1)(g) of the Act 2019 [corresponding Section 14 ( 1 ) ( f ) of the Act 1986 ] to forthwith discontinue its unfair trade practice of arbitrarily and highhandedly imposing additional cost of carry bags on the consumer at the time of making payment, without prominent prior notice and information before the consumer makes his choice of patronizing its retail outlets and before the consumer makes his selection of goods for purchase, as also without disclosing the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. The necessary notice/signs/ announcement/advertisement/warning should be in the place and manner as may enable the consumer to make his informed choice of whether or not to patronize its retail outlets, and whether or not to make his selection of goods for purchase from its retail outlets. The notice or information cannot be at the occasion of making payment, after the consumer has exercised his choice to patronize its retail outlet, and after he has made his selection of goods for purchase." 7. That the OPs have stated that he has been following practice whereby the necessary notice/signs/announcement/ advertisement/warning is placed in manner enabling the consumer to make a choice whether or not to patronize its retail outlets, and whether or not to make his selection of goods for purchase from its retail outlets.
8. On the other hand, complainant has argued that he had requested the official of OPs that it was their duty to provide him a carry bag for free as he had bought a lot of commodities from the OPs, but the OPs clearly refused to do the same and also the name of the carry bag has been deliberately and wrongly mentioned as PTNS PARBAG. Moreover name of the Pantaloon was also endorsing its brand on the carry bag which was not justified.
9. After going through the contents of the complaint as well as bill, it reveals that the OPs have charged Rs.5/- for carry bag upon the bill and this factor is very well mentioned in the bill Ex.C-1. We find there is no provision to charge for carry bag rather it is fundamental duty of the seller to provide a bag for carrying the goods to the consumer, without any charges, but in the instant case, the OPs have committed grave negligence as well as unfair trade practice by charging an amount of Rs.5/- for carry bag and in support of this version, we take an opportunity to refer a pronouncement of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh, decided in Appeal No.98 of 2019, date of Institution 17.05.2019, decided on 22.07.2019, titled as “Bata India Limited Vs. Dinesh Parshad Raturi” and further referred another pronouncement of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh, decided in Appeal No.24 of 2019, date of Institution 01.02.2019, decided on 18.03.2019, titled as “M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Chandgothia etc.”
10. If we see the case of the complainant in the light of above judgments of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh, then we can say that the complainant is entitled for the relief and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to refund the amount of Carry Bag illegally charged Rs.5/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of payment till its realization and further OPs are directed to pay compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj
25.04.2022 Member Member President
