DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 137 of 2022.

 

Sri Mithu Paul,

S/O- Sri Haridas Paul,

Subhashnagar, East Pratapgarh,

P.O. East Pratapgarh, P.S. East Agartala,

District- West Tripura-799004.         …..............Complainant.

 

 VERSUS

 

Bag Bazar,

New Somelal Traders, 

Howkers Corner Road, Agartala,

P.S. West Agartala, 

West Tripura- 799001. 

(To be represented by the 

Store Manager). ................Opposite Party.

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

  Learned Advocate.   

 

For the O.P.  : Sri Tarun Dey Sarkar,

  Laxmi Rani Das,

  Learned Advocates.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 26.10.2022

 

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 complaining against the O.P. for deficiency of service. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that on 14.02.2022 he went to Bag Bazar, New Somelal Traders, Howkers Corner Road, Agartala, West Agartala for purchasing some stationery items and while entering into the shopping mall, the staff of the Bag Bazar shopping mall at the gate does not allow him to enter within their business premisses with a carry bag which the complainant brought with him. However, the complainant entered inside the shopping mall after leaving the carry bags and after purchasing the goods he proceeded to the bill counter for payment. The staff of the bill counter took out carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing those purchased articles without asking the complainant in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to the complainant.  Surprisingly the staff of the cash counter told the complainant to pay extra Rs.14.99/- for the carry bag. Then he told the counter staff that he had no intention to purchase the carry bag. Thereafter he contact with the store manager of the shopping mall but from there also he did not get any proper response of extra charge for the carry bag. He also enquired on what basis they charge Rs.14.99/- for low quality bag and asked them to provide him circular regarding that issue but they did not pay any attention of his queries. Moreover they told that its rule of the shopping mall that if any customer purchase items then they have to pay the cost of the carry bag. Again the complainant went to the bill counter for rectification of the bill and requested the staff of the cash counter to remove the extra charge of the carry bag but the staff of the cash counter loudly told him in front of the other customer that rectification of the bill is not possible and returned the articles and take back the money. As the stationery articles are necessary for the complainant and cannot be able to take the goods in hands without a carry bag he was forced to pay Rs.14.99/- for the same vide memo/invoice No.12150 dated 14.02.2022.  It is also stated by the complainant in his complaint petition that for the ill behavior of the staffs of the O.P. shopping mall he had to suffer mental pressure, agony and also faced harassment in front of the other customer which was unbearable to him and beyond exception form such a reputed shopping mall. The charging of Rs.14.99/- for the carry bag amounts to deficiency in service  and also unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. shopping mall. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission for getting relief. 

 

2. After getting notice form this Commission the O.P. appeared and filed written reply denying the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition. In their written statement they have stated that complaint is not maintainable in facts as well as in law and it is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that Bag Bazar(O.P.) is one of the renowned business concern basically this shopping mall concern is famous for its variety of bags, show pieces, gift items, artificial flowers bouquet and vases etc etc. The O.P. basically selling various shopping bags bearing code number and the price was from Rs.5/- to Rs.115/- of various shopping bag items. The allegations of the complainant that billing extra charge for carry bag is absolutely false and it is denied. 

  

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

  Complainant submitted examination in chief by way  of  affidavit as PW-I and produced 02 documents under a Firisti dated 05.04.2022. The invoice and the Carry bag on identification have been marked as  Exhibit- 1 and M.O.-1 respectively. 

On the  other hand, on behalf of the O.P., one Prasenjit Saha, Manager of Bag Bazar, Agartala submitted examination in chief on affidavit as D.W.1. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: -

    On perusal of the Complaint and having regard to the evidence adduced by the Complainant, the following points are to be determined:-

  (i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?     

5. ARGUMENT :-

At the time of argument Learned counsel of the complainant was found absent. We heard argument from the side of the counsel of the O.P. namely Mr. Tarun Dey Sarkar. Mr. Dey Sarkar Submits that the exhibit- M.O. 1 which is submitted from the side of the complainant considering it as as carry bag is not at all a carry bag. It is a shopping bag since O.P. (Bag Bazar) deals in shopping bag and complainant purchased the shopping bag as a item and O.P. never dealt the bag as a carry bag. Moreover in the invoice the name of the complainant is not mentioned and in the bill also the bag was mentioned as shopping bag. So the complainant failed to prove his case and it is liable to be dismissed.       

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

Both issues are taken up together for the convenience.

          We have gone through the complaint as well as the written objection and also evidence adduced from both sides. The Exhibit- 1(invoice) clearly shows that it is not a carry bag but it is a shopping bag. At the time of argument Mr. Dey Sarkar pointed out that each shopping bag has code number and Bag Bazar dealing in shopping bag as an item/good. So it can not be treated as a carry bag. On scrutiny we found that Exhibit M.O.1 is not a carry bag, it is shopping bag which is purchasable commodity and it can be sold out. 

 

7. In the instant case the complainant has failed to prove that the O.P. sold out any carry bag and they compelled the complainant to make payment for the carry bag. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. 

  Supply copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost.

 

        Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.