Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/107/2020

Reliance Retail Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amarpreet Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjiv Pabbi & Rajat Pabbi Adv.

25 Oct 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	107 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	14.08.2020
Date of Decision	:	25.10.2021

 

Reliance Retail Limited, [Reliance Trends] Elante Mall, Plot No.178, Shop No.247 & 248, Industrial Area, Phase-I, U.T., Chandigarh, having its Office at C-135, Phase VIII, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab 160071 through its Power of Attorney Holder Himanshu Shekhar Jha, aged 56 years, son of Late Dr. M. P. Jha.

                                      .... Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Amarpreet Singh R/o H.No.740-B, HIG, Flats, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali, (Punjab). 

….Respondent/Complainant..

 

Present through Video Conferencing:-      

Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Amarpreet Singh, respondent in person.

 

Appeal No.	:	117 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	02.09.2020
Date of Decision	:	25.10.2021

 

Reliance Retail Limited, [Reliance Trends] Elante Mall, Plot No.178, Shop No.247 & 248, Industrial Area, Phase-I, U.T., Chandigarh, having its Office at C-135, Phase VIII, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab 160071 through its Power of Attorney Holder Himanshu Shekhar Jha, aged 56 years, son of Late Dr. M. P. Jha.

                                      .... Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Mohit Gupta S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta R/o H.no.388, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh. 

….Respondent/Complainant..

Present through Video Conferencing:-      

Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Brijesh Khosla, Advocate for the respondent.

 

Appeal No.	:	128 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	15.09.2020
Date of Decision	:	25.10.2021

 

Reliance Retail Limited, [Reliance Trends] Elante Mall, Plot No.178, Shop No.247 & 248, Industrial Area, Phase-I, U.T., Chandigarh, having its Office at C-135, Phase VIII, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab 160071 through its Power of Attorney Holder Himanshu Shekhar Jha, aged 56 years, son of Late Dr. M. P. Jha.

                                      .... Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Rahi Singhal S/o Sh. Ram Mohan Gupta, Resident of H.No.1008, First Floor, Sector 12-A, Panchkula (Haryana). 

….Respondent/Complainant.

Present through Video Conferencing:-      

Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondent exparte vide order dated 19.11.2020.

 

Appeal No.	:	131 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	29.09.2020
Date of Decision	:	25.10.2021

 

Reliance Retail Limited, [Reliance Trends] Elante Mall, Plot No.178, Shop No.247 & 248, Industrial Area, Phase-I, U.T., Chandigarh, having its Office at C-135, Phase VIII, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab 160071 through its Power of Attorney Holder Himanshu Shekhar Jha, aged 56 years, son of Late Dr. M. P. Jha.

                                      .... Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Neha D/o Late Sh. Vikram Dogra, Resident of H.No.3554, Sector 15-D, U.T., Chandigarh. 

….Respondent/Complainant..

Present through Video Conferencing:-      

Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Brijesh Khosla, Advocate for the respondent.

 

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA,  MEMBER           

                   These appeals have arisen out of the impugned orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- I, U.T., Chandigarh (now known as District Commission), whereby the consumer complaints filed by the complainants (respondents herein) have been partly allowed. Details of the said consumer complaints are given below:-
 

S.No.	CC No.	Date of order	District Forum	Allowed/Dismissed	Appeal No.
1.	1061/2019	16.07.2020	DF-I	Partly allowed	107/2020
2.	644/2019	07.08.2020	DF-I	Partly allowed	117/2020
3.	1132/2019	17.08.2020	DF-I	Partly allowed	128/2020
4.	310/2019	31.08.2020	DF-I	Partly allowed	131/2020

2.                As common questions of facts and law have emerged in above captioned appeals arising out of the orders passed by District Commission and the facts thereof are analogous to each other to a great extent, therefore, this Commission would like to take them together and decide with a common order.

3.                The facts are being culled from the file of consumer complaint bearing No.1061 of 2019 titled ‘Amarpreet Singh Vs. Reliance Retail Limited, partly allowed by the District Commission in the following manner:-

“11.   In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed:-

(i)     To refund to the Complainant the amount of Rs.5/-    wrongly charged for the carry bag;

(ii)    To pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony. Compensation imposed on lower side as mental agony of           parting with Rs.5/- could only be caused to this extent.

(iii)   To pay Rs.500/- as litigation expenses.      

12.        This order be complied with by the Opposite Party within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above. No punitive order is being passed against the Opposite Party due to the lock down/curfew for the last more than two months due to which all the business activities in Chandigarh has come to a grinding halt.” 

4.                Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant selected and purchased certain items/articles from the opposite party-Store on 09.11.2019 and took them to the billing counter for making necessary payment. At the time of payment, he saw that an amount of Rs.5/- was charged for a carry bag to carry the items (Annexure C-2). The complainant resisted the charging for carry bag but of no avail. Alleging said act and conduct of the opposite party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complaint was filed before the District Commission.

5.                The opposite party contested the complaint and stated that to protect the environment at large and also to provide convenience to the visiting customers, the opposite party introduced the optional sale of carry bags. It was stated that the charges of Rs.5/- for a carry bag were taken only after the consent of the complainant and moreover, the requisite information was also displayed in the Store of the opposite party. It was further stated that the opposite party charged for the carry bag only if the customer consents for the same. 

6.                The parties led evidence in support of their case.

7.                After hearing arguments of the parties and going through the record, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint, as stated above.

8.                We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record and written arguments of the parties carefully.

9.                The appellant/opposite party has assailed the order of the District Commission on the ground that the respondent failed to disclose as to how charging for a carry bag could be construed as deficiency in service; that it was only after obtaining the consent of the respondent that he had been billed for the carry bag; that the customers could bring their own bags and purchase of carry bag in the store was optional and not compulsory and that the District Commission wrongly held that the case of the appellant is covered under Section 36 of the Sales of Goods Act and Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act 1872. 

10.              It may be stated here that earlier, similar appeal bearing No.59 of 2020 was filed by the appellant titled ‘M/s Trends Reliance Retail Ltd. Vs. Reema Beri’, wherein identical grounds were taken to assail the order impugned in the said appeal, which was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 30.09.2021.

11.              In the instant case also, it may be stated here that it is not for the first time this Commission is dealing with the issue of charging for the carry bag but this issue has already been decided by this Commission in numerous cases. A similar question fell for determination before this Commission in First Appeal No.238 of 2019 titled as Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar,  decided on 18.05.2020 wherein while negating the plea taken by Big Bazaar, the appeals filed by it were dismissed and the orders passed by the District Commissions I and II were upheld by holding as under:-

“12.  Our above view is supported by the provisions of Sub Section (5) of Section 36 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which makes it absolutely clear that unless otherwise agreed, the expenses of and incidental to putting the goods into a deliverable state, shall be borne by the seller. Thus, under this provision of law, all the expenses with regard to packing, providing carry bags etc. shall be borne by the vendor in order to put the goods into a deliverable state.

          In the present cases also, the goods with different brands name i.e. macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., were put in the carry-bags by the appellant, in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to the respondents. The appellant has failed to prove its case that the carry-bag was separately purchased by the respondents/purchasers of their own free will, rather, the appellant has used the same for the purpose of putting the above said goods to make them into a deliverable state. Thus, all the expenses required and incurred to make the goods into a deliverable state for handing over to the purchasers thereof, were to be borne by the appellant. In this view of the matter, the appellant has no right to recover the expenses borne by it on the packing of the goods or putting the goods in a carry bag for making the same in a deliverable state.

13.    At the time of arguments, when confronted with the above situation, Counsel for the appellant with a view to buttress her cases, placed heavy reliance on provisions of Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, to contend that the appellant was not bound to provide carry bags, free of cost, to the respondents. Relevant part of the said Rule is reproduced hereunder:-

“10 Explicit pricing of carry bags. - No carry bags shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers. The concerned municipal authority may by notification determine the minimum price for carry bags depending upon their quality and size which covers their material and waste management costs in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation.”

          No doubt, from Rule 10 afore-extracted, it is evident that no “carry bags” shall be available free of cost by the retailers to customers, yet, when we go through Rule 3 of the said Rules, under the heading “Definition”, it is found that the said "carry bags" means bags made from any plastic material, used for the purpose of carrying or dispensing commodities but do not include bags that constitute or form an integral part of the packaging in which goods are sealed prior to use. Relevant part of the said Rule reads as under:-

"carry bags" means bags made from any plastic material, used for the purpose of carrying or dispensing commodities but do not include bags that constitute or form an integral part of the packaging in which goods are sealed prior to use;]”

          When we read the said Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, as a whole, it reveals that the said Rules have been framed with a view to enforce the provisions relating to the use, collection, segregation, transportation and disposal of plastic waste and also the conditions to be fulfilled during the course of manufacture, stocking, distribution, sale and use of carry bags and sachets, in order to save the environment. Thus, Rule 10 relates to explicit pricing of carry bags, made from any plastic material, used for the purpose of carrying or dispensing commodities, to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation, to save the environment. Whereas, in the present cases, as stated above, the appellant failed to deliver the goods in the complete state of delivery and on the other hand, charged for the carry bags made of jute, which was required to put the goods i.e. macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to the respondents; thereby violating the provisions of Sub Section (5) of Section 36 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, referred to above, which says that  all the expenses with regard to packing etc. shall be borne by the vendor in order to put the goods into a deliverable state. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the appellant from the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules 2011.

14.    It was also vehemently contended by Counsel for the appellant that the purchase of carry bag is entirely optional and is a voluntary act by a consumer. However, in the same breath, it was also contended by her that the customers cannot bring their own carry bags containing items/goods purchased from other shops.

          It may be stated here that, once we have already held that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller, as such, the contention raised does not merit acceptance. Ever otherwise, as per the contention raised by Counsel for the appellant, on the one hand, 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 alongwith the goods purchased, to carry the same from the shop-premises. We are shocked to note the kind of services provided by these big Malls/Showrooms. One cannot be expected to take the goods like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., purchased, in hands. By not allowing the customers to bring in the shop premises, their own carry bags, and thrusting its own carry bags against consideration, the appellant is deficient in providing service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. No case is made out to reverse the findings of the respective District Commission in each appeal.

15.    For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that all these appeals are devoid of merit and the same deserve dismissal. Consequently all the above captioned appeals are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The orders of the District Commission in each appeal are upheld”.

 

12.              Not only above, even the bunch of Revision Petitions filed before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the lead case being Revision Petition No.975 of 2020 titled ‘BIG BAZAAR (FUTURE RETAIL LTD.)  Versus ASHOK KUMAR’, challenging the aforesaid order dated 18.05.2020 passed by this Commission, were disposed of by Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 22.12.2020, whereby the findings of this Commission given in Paras 14 and 15 of order dated 18.05.2020 as extracted above, were upheld. While disposing of the aforesaid bunch of said appeals, the Hon’ble National Commission further held that the Award made by the District Forum, as upheld by the State Commission, appeared just and equitable in the facts of the case  and on the face of it, nothing warrants interference with the Award in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission.

13.              It may also be stated here that this Commission in a bunch of nine appeals, the lead case of Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Tanu Malik, Appeal No.14 of 2020, decided on 15.10.2020, while dealing with a similar issue of charging for the paper bags, held in Para 13, as under:-

“13.   In the present appeals also, being facts and circumstances of similar nature and against the same company, nothing new has been placed on record by the appellant, to convince this Commission to diverge from the findings given in Ashok Kumar’s case. (supra).  Despite the fact that this Commission in Ashok Kumar’s case. (supra) held that the appellant was deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice by charging amount towards the carry bag, even then it did not discontinue with the said practice and have shown its courage to continue the same. The said act of the appellant needs to be deprecated.”

 

14.              The grounds raised in the instant appeal being similar ones have already been dealt with by this Commission in the cases as already decided by this Commission and as referred to in the preceding para of this order. Therefore, we reiterate our earlier view in this case also that the appellant was deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice by charging amount towards the carry bag. In addition, we are of the firm view that so far as the pleas/arguments raised by the Counsel for the appellant that suitable advertisements and posters have been displayed at prominent locations in the store as the appellant environmental policy and that the carry bag was given to the respondent only upon his confirmation with respect to the purchase of the carry bag, the District Commission rightly held in Para 8 and 9 of its order as under:-

“8.     The Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party has argued that suitable advertisements and posters are displayed at prominent locations in the store as Opposite Party is committed to follow a responsible environmental policy.  However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, the Opposite Party has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence in the shape of any rules/ instructions authorizing it to levy charge additionally for the carry bag from the gullible Consumers. Moreover, if the Opposite Party is an environmental activist, it should have given the same to the complainant free of cost. Therefore, the contention of the Opposite Party that there is no law as such which directs or binds any shop keeper to provide carry bags for free is rejected being bereft of any force. It was surely for the gain of Opposite Party and by employing unfair trade practice, Opposite Party is minting lot of money from all customers.

 

9.        Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party further argued that the carry bag was given to the Complainant only upon confirmation from her with respect to the purchase of the carry bag. However, we are also not impressed with the same, in as much as if the Cashier informed the Complainant about the purchase of carry bag before billing, the same amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, as it would have been very odd and inconvenient for Complainant to carry the new articles in hand throughout without a carry bag. In this backdrop, charges of such things (carry bags) cannot be separately foisted upon the consumers and would amount to overcharging. It is noteworthy that in this manner, the Complainant and other gullible consumers like her has certainly been taken for a ride by the Opposite Party. Undoubtedly, the Opposite Party has several stores across the country and in the above said manner, made lot of money; thus, the act of Opposite Party by forcing the gullible consumers to pay additionally for the carry bags is surely and certainly amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice.”

 

15.              Not only above, we may also like to add here that the argument raised is not supported by any cogent and convincing evidence on record. Moreover, it was the specific case of the respondent/complainant that there was nowhere mentioned in the entire shop that the customer would have to take his/her own carry bag. We further endorse the view held by the District Commission that the sequence of events established the high handedness of the opposite party of which the complainant became the victim and felt the brunt, as a result he was left with no alternative, except to knock the doors of the District Commission, which further aggravated her pain & harassment.

16.              For the reasons recorded above, it is held that the orders passed by District Commission-I partly allowing the consumer complaints did not need any interference and as such, are upheld. Resultantly, all these appeal, being devoid of merit, stand dismissed with no order as to costs.

17.              Certified copy of this order be placed in the connected appeals also.

18.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

19.              The file be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

25.10.2021

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad