DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 343 of 2022.

 

Sri Bishal Paul,

S/O- Sri Hare Krishna Paul,

Town Pratapgarh, 

Central Road Extension,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Tripura,

Pin- 799001. …..............Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

BAAZAR INDIA,

  A Unit of Mayasheel Retail India Ltd., 

8/43 Radhanagar,

P.S.-West Agartala, 

Dist.- West Tripura, Pin-799005.

(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.  : None appeared. 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 29.08.2022

 

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 01.04.2022 the Complainant went to Baazar India shopping mall for purchasing household items and while entering inside into the Shopping Mall, the staff of O.P. at the entrance gate does not allow the Complainant to enter within their business premises with carry bags which the Complainant brought with him. Thereafter he went to the bill counter for payment of the goods, the staff of the bill counter took carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of those purchased articles without asking him in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to him. But surprisingly the staff of the cash counter told him to pay extra Rs.5/- for carry bag. Then the Complainant was forced to pay Rs.5/- extra as the carry bag charge in Cash Memo/Invoice dated 01.04.2022. Thereafter, he made contact with the Store Manager but from there also he did not get any proper response of extra charge for carry bag and he also enquired on what basis they charged for Rs.5/- for low quality carry bag and also asked them to provide him any circular regarding that issue but they did not pay any attention of his queries. He again went to the bill counter for rectification of bill and requested the staff of the cash counter to remove the extra charge of carry bag but surprisingly the staff of the cash counter loudly told him in front of the other customers of the mall that rectification of bill is not possible. As a result he had to suffer mental pressure, agony and faced harassment infront of the other customers which was unbearable to him. Hence this case. 

2. Notice was issued upon the O.P. for appearance and filing of W.O. but inspite of receiving notice O.P. did not turn up. As a result the case is proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. vide order dated 18.08.2022.   

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

  Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant has produced 02 documents under a Firisti dated 09.06.2022. The documents namely the Original Cash Memo and the Carry bag on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 and M.O.-1.           

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the Complainant 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?           

 

EX-PARTE ARGUMENT :-

At the time of argument Learned Advocate for the Complainant submitted that charging of Rs.5/- for a carry bag is most illegal under Sub-section 5 of Section 36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Then, Complainant was forced to pay Rs.5/- extra for a carry bag and it was mentioned in the cash memo or in the invoice. Complainant further submits that the activities and behaviour of the staff of the O.P. was unbearable to the Complainant. He further submitted that the charging of Rs.5/- for a carry bag amounts to deficiency in service as well as it is an unfair trade practice and Complainant is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service of the O.P. Complainant relied upon a decision of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble State Commission in First Appeal No.A/32/2021 dated 17/05/2022 (Vishal Mega Mart Vs. Sri Mridul Kanti Arya).      

         

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

Both issues are taken up together for the convenience.

          We have gone through the complaint and also evidence adduced from the side of the Complainant.

        Complainant in his examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that he was not allowed with a carry bag to enter into the shopping mall of the O.P. and he was forced to make an extra payment of Rs.5/- for carry bag, though he had no intention to purchase the carry bag. He has submitted the invoice and the carry bag which is marked as Exhibit-1 & M.O.-1. He deposed that for the act of the staff of the shopping mall he had suffered mental pressure, agony and faced harassment in front of the other customers which are unbearable. 

7. As per provision of Sub-section-5 of Section-36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 there is an obligation on the part of the seller that the seller will hand over the possession of the purchased goods to its customers into a deliverable State. So, under the provision of Section-36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 a seller can not charge for a carry bag which is used for the purpose of handing over the purchased goods in deliverable State, if the bag itself is not purchased as a goods or item.                               

8.            In the instant case, we find that the bag was sold as an item in contravention of sale of Goods Act, 1930. So, we are in the opinion that Complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. We give a direction to the O.P. to refund the amount of Rs.5/- which was charged for carry bag and also Rs.500/- as a compensation and Rs.500/- as a cost of litigation i.e. in total of Rs.1,005/-(Rs.500/- + Rs.500/- + Rs.5/-). 

  The O.P. is directed to make the payment within 1 month from the date of judgment, if the payment is not made within 1 month then it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made in full.                  

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to the Complainant and Complainant will send a copy of the judgment to the O.P. by registered post for their information and compliance.  

 

 

 

        Announced.

 

 

 

 

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.