BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Sulabh Mahajan, S/o Sh. Susheel Kumar Gupta, r/o #103, GH-8, Sector-20, Panchkula, Haryana

          ……. Complainant

Versus

Big Baazar Future Retail Limited, Minerva complex, Plot No.180/123, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt through its Store Incharge/authorized signatory

                                                                                       ….…. Opposite Party

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Present:      None for the complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                  Shri Puneet Sirpaul, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To refund the extra amount of Rs.7/-, as charged to the complainant along with interest at 18% P.A. from the date of payment i.e. 04.06.2019 till actual payment;
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for agony and harassment;
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.           Brief facts of the case are that the OP is running a business of selling clothes, footwear and other accessories under the name and style of Big Baazar and is operating from Ambala Cantt. On 04.06.2019 the complainant visited the  OP  and purchased one shorts of Rs.306/-, vide invoice number 4768013000004876. The complainant made the said payment of Rs.306/- but while making the payment it was pointed out that the OP has charged Rs.7/- on account of the carry bag/paper bag, but the complainant had no intention to purchase the said carry bag. Thereafter the complainant asked the official of the OP to wave off the same as primarily it is the sole duty of the OP to provide the carry bag, but the official of the OP refused to do so. Left with no other option, the complainant made the said payment of Rs.7/- for the said carry bag.  Nowhere in the entire shop premises it was mentioned that the OP would charge for a carry bag and it would have been very odd and inconvenient for the complainant to carry the item as purchased in hand throughout without a paper bag. The OP has several stores across the country and in the above said manner, made lot of money. Thus the act of OP by forcing the gullible consumers to pay additionally for the paper bags amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objection to the effect that the complaint filed by the complainant is baseless and misconceived; the complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant has erroneously alleged that the OP has illegally charged Rs.7/- for the carry bag purchased by him. The OP follows an environmentally responsible policy aimed at encouraging customers to carry their own shopping bags, of which suitable notice was provided to the complainant by way of advertisements and posters displayed at prominent locations in the concerned store. The complainant was expressly informed at the cashier's counter by the representative of the OP that in the event of him being desirous of taking a new carry bag for his purchases from the OP, he would have to separately pay a sum of Rs.7/- for it. The OP is committed to following a responsible environmental policy so that its business activity cause as little environmental degradation as possible. Pursuant to the decision to adopt green policies, the OP encourages its customers to carry their own bags, so that the damage caused by new plastic / paper bags is minimized. The complainant has sought to present a distorted picture by alleging that the price of the carry bag, viz., Rs.7/- was charged without his consent. The cashier prepared the bill / invoice on the instruction of the consumer that he wished to separately purchase a carry bag. The O.P. is not selling carry bags commercially and is only reimbursing itself for a part of the price incurred by it in procuring the carry bags. The cost price of the paper bag provided by the OP is in fact higher than the price of Rs.7/- that it charges for the same from consumers, who wish to purchase the paper bag. It was not compulsory for the complainant to purchase a carry bag from the O.P. The same issue arose in Revision Petition no. 975 of 2020 and Others, wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC vide its judgment dated 22/12/2020 while dismissing the revision petitions has already allowed the OP to charge for carry bag. The OP  in compliance of this judgment has already through advertisements/poster/notices, clearly displayed at prominent locations of the concerned store wherein the OP has given prior notice and information with regard to the additional cost of carry bags. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OP failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the OP have been closed by the order of this Commission on 21.04.2023.
5.           None appeared on behalf of the complainant for arguments, as such, we have heard the learned counsel for the OP and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the OP while reiterating the objections and submissions made in the written version submitted that because the OP had clearly placed notice board in its premises qua charging of carry bag, in case, the customer opted for the same, therefore the OP had rightly charged Rs.7/- for the carry bag from the complainant. 
7.           Because there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the OP had charged an extra amount of Rs.7/- from the complainant for carry bag, as stated in the complaint, therefore, the moot question that needs to be decided is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief in this case or not. It may be stated here that a similar issue has already been set at knot by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in the case BIG BAZAAR (FUTURE RETAIL LTD.) Versus ASHOK KUMAR REVISION PETITION NO. 975 OF 2020, date of decision 22.12.2020, wherein the revision petition filed by Big Bazaar was dismissed while holding that selling the carry bags, without the consent of the consumer is unfair and deceptive. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereinafter:- “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 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.”.
8.           In the instant case also, the OP has failed to prove its case that it sold the carry bag after obtaining the consent of the complainant or that they it displayed any information qua sale of the said carry bags at different visible places at the premises. Though, the OP in its written version has taken a stand that it had given prior notice/advertisement/poster at prominent places of the premises qua additional cost of carry bags to the customers but it failed to place on record any evidence in that regard. Infact, as stated above, evidence of the OP was closed by this Commission vide order dated 21.04.2023, as it failed to tender the same despite availing number of opportunities. Thus, by charging Rs.7/- from the complainant, the OP is deficient in rendering service and guilty of unfair trade practice. 
9.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against the OP and direct it, in the following manner:-
   1. To refund the amount of Rs.7/-, to the complainant.
   2. To pay lumpsum compensation as well as cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.  

The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OP shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.     

Announced:- 12.01.2024.