Delhi

East Delhi

CC/268/2019

ABHEY KR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIG BAZAR - Opp.Party(s)

25 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 268/19

 

 

Abhay Kumar Tayal

F- 284, Third floor, Gali No. 7,

Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar Phase-1,

New Delhi- 110091

•  

Vs

1. Big Bazaar Super Market,

Future Group,

Through: Mr. Kishore Biyani,

Chief Executive Officer

 

Jogeshwari- Vikhroli Link Rd.

Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari East Mumbai,

Maharashtra- 400060.

 

2. Big Bazaar Store,

Mayur Vihar Phase-1, Delhi 110091,

Near Mayur Vihar Extension Metro Station

Through: Store Manager

 

                                                                             ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 23.08.2019

Judgment Reserved on: 25.11.2019

Judgment Passed on: 06.12.2019

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                           (MEMBER)

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

 

Order

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Abhay Kumar Tayal, the complainant, against Big Bazaar Super Market, Future Group (OP-1) and Big Bazaar Store, (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of present complaint are that the complainant, a practicing advocate visited OP-2 on 01.07.2019 and purchased certain grocery and clothes at the cash counter, after payment the articles were handed over to the complainant without putting them into a carry bag. The complainant was asked to pay Rs. 24/- in case he wanted a carry bag. It has been stated by the complainant that no where in the store it was mentioned that the customers had to pay for the carry bag. The complainant has further stated that there after he carried all the clothe articles in his hand which was witnessed by huge number of customers present there as well as staff of OP-2.

It has been alleged by the complainant that the carry bag offered to the complainant was labeled with printed advertisements wherein the name of Big Bazaar was printed in green colour, thus it was clearly for the promotion of the brand and commercial in nature. The complainant has further relied on Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2011 and amendment in the said rule vide notification dated 27.03.2018. It has been stated by the complainant that since OP was charging for the carry bag it amounted to unfair trade practice and was making huge profits by taking handsome amount of money in the name of carry bags from the customers and advertising the brand name on the same. Legal notice dated 04.07.2019 was served upon OPs, where the OPs were called upon to stop charging for the carry bag. The said notice was neither replied nor complied with.

Hence, the present complaint with prayer for directions to OP-1 and OP-2 to immediately stop unfair trade practice of charging for the carry bags prevailing across all the stores of Future Group/ Big Bazaar’s in India; compensation and damages to the tune of Rs. 12,50,000/- for loss of reputation, mental torture and physical agony.

The complainant has annexed invoice dated 03.07.2019, photo copy of the carry bag, legal notice dated 04.07.2019 alongwith postal receipts and track report with his complaint.

We have heard the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the Complainant on the point of admission and have perused the material placed on record. The Counsel for Complainant has stated that the OP had indulged in unfair trade practice by charging for carry bags.

The first and foremost point that raises for consideration is as to whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ or not.  To ascertain this, a look has to be made to para 3 and 4 of the complaint which are extracted hereunder:-

3. That the complainant went to the store of Opposite Party No. 2 on 01.07.2019 and purchased certain grocery and cloths from the concerned store and took them to the billing counter for making payment. A copy of the purchase receipt is annexed is herewith as ANNEXURE- C-1(Colly.).  

4.   That the cashier/ employee of the Opposite Party No. 2 after receiving the payment handed over the articles without putting them into a carry bag and when the complainant asked to provide the same, he was apprised that he had to purchase it @ Rs. 24/- (Rupees Twenty Four Only) otherwise he has to carry the articles in his hands. It is pertinent to mention that in the store it was nowhere mentioned that the Opposite Party No.-1 charges any amount for the carry bags. The complainant thereafter carried all the cloth articles in his hand and huge number of customers witnessed the above incident including the staff of Opposite Party No.-2, which ruins the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of general public.

          If we look at the bill annexed with the complaint, it is of dated 03.07.2019, whereas the complainant has alleged that he had been charged for the carry bag on 01.07.2019. We have also read the contents of the legal notice dated 04.07.2019, where also the complainant had mentioned the date of purchase as 01.07.2019. Therefore, no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant on 01.07.2019 as the bill is of dated 03.07.2019.

          Thus, it comes out that the complainant did not purchase the carry bag on 01.07.2019.  That being so, he is not a ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          Here, it would not be out of place to have a reference to the order of Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi, in First Appeal No. 163/2019 titled as Radhakrishnan.R V/s Big Bazar and Others, where it has been stated that:

“I may also add that the gazette notification relied upon by the appellant is simple to the effect that plastic bag would not be used in order to save environment. But it does not mean that the shopkeeper has to supply carry bag. The intending purchaser must carry bag from his house. If he prefer not to carry bag and wants the shopkeeper supply the same he must pay extra for it”.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Thus, his complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per law.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                     (SUKHDEV SINGH)                                    

              MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT