BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-44/2019
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy,Member (W).
Nabin Kumar Satpathy, aged about 54 years,
S/O-Late Jogindra Satpathy,
R/O- Deheripali, Fatak, P.O- Budharaja,
P.S-Ainthapali,Dist-Sambalpur. …..Complainant
Vrs.
Baazar Kolkata,
A Unit of Baazar Retail Limited,
At-Nayapara,Golebazaar,Sambalpur,
P.s-Town,P.O/Dist-Sambalpur
represented through it’s Manager. ….. O.P
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant:- Sri B.G Mishra,Advocate & Associates.
- For the O.P :- Sri S.Kar, Advocate & Associates
DATE OF HEARING : 01.03.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 22.03.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant on dtd 06.05.2019 has visited with his wife to Baazar Kolkata to purchase garments for his own use. The complainant purchased a T-Shirt amounting to Rs.329/- and went to the billing counter and asked for a bill. The cashier at the billing counter issued a bill bearing NO-CM/000015662 having Tax Invoice No-A15P1920-0016332 for a sum of Rs.334/-. The Complainant asked the cashier for the excess billing of Rs.5/- and he answered that he has charges Rs.5/- towards the Poly bag. When the Complainant denied to pay the extra charges for the Poly Bag, the cashier misbehaved him saying that no customer has any objection regarding this and also warned him not to come to the shop again. The Complainant felt himself humiliated in presence of other customers present there and finding no other way compelled pay the price towards the Poly Bag. Though the Complainant was reluctant to pay for the Poly Bag but the Cashier has forced him to pay for the same which contains the name of the Shop and the O.P has used him as his advertising agent for free which is an unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P. Due to this activities of the O.P customers are falling in financial loss and are being harassed unnecessarily. Hence the O.P 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.P denies the allegations of compelling the Complainant to purchase and pay for poly bags. It is purely optional as every purchaser/customer was asked and confirmed about the requirement of poly bags and if the customer agrees then the O.P provides him poly bag on payment of the price fixed at Rs.5/-for the same. If the Complainant had no interest to pay for the poly bags, he would have cancelled the present billing and opt for a fresh bill without poly bags. The O.P is not under any legal obligation to provide carry bags to its customers rather he is trying to restricting the usage of plastic bags. The poly bag is neither sold nor displayed in regular course of transaction. To buy or not to buy is a consumer’s decision. The O.P cannot force to purchase its products to any customer and pay for the Poly Bags. He added that the allegation of cheating comes under the Purview of IPC and this commission has no jurisdiction to try this matter. In this way the O.P 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.P on payment of money. Again the O.P has taken Rs.5/- towards the charges of Carry Bag which is an unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P. 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 can be said to have adopted Unfair Trade Practice.
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P 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 is 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. 22nd day ofMarch, 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
I agree,
-sd/-(22.03.2021) -sd/-(22.03.2021)
Smt. S.Tripathy Sri. D.K. Mahapatra
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
-sd/-(22.03.2021)
Sri. D.K. Mahapatra
PRESIDENT
