Delhi

East Delhi

CC/375/2018

RADHAKRISHANAN R. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIG BAZAR - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2019

ORDER

                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                   CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        375 / 2019

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  13/12/2018

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 18/01/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          21/01/2019                                                                                                    

In matter of

Mr. Radhakrishnan R, adult  

S/o- Sh. Raveendran Nair T 

R/o-16E, Pocket 3, Mayur Vihar Phase 1,

Nr. Uttara Guruvayoorappan Temple, Delhi 110092..………………………….Complainant                                                                   

                                                                    

                                                                                  Vs

1-M/s Big Bazar-Mayur Vihar Extn.

Represented by its Manager

Mayur Vihar Extn. Metro station Phase 1,

Delhi 110092

 

2-Future Retail Ltd., Represented by its CEO    

Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar,

Off- Jogeshwari – Vikroli Link Road, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai 400060

 

3- Govt of Delhi through its Chief Secy.

Delhi Secretariat, I P Estate, New Delhi 110002………………………..…………Opponents

 

Complainant ………………………………..In Person

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                    

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order on Admission Hearing –by Dr P N Tiwari Member 

 

Complainant representing ‘Class of Consumers’ filed this complaint under Sec. 12(1)(C) & 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 against OP1/Big Bazaar for compulsory purchasing one cotton bag and illegally charging, so claimed refund of Rs 13/-from OP1 and compensation against OP2 & OP3 for their deficiency in services.  

 

Brief Facts of the case  -

Complainant presented his case at admission hearing after taking number of adjournments. He

submitted written arguments also for getting his case admitted at hearing stage (Ex CW1/1&2 ) citing reference of nature of plastic carry bag to sell such bags contrary to GSR 320 (E) of Govt of India under Gazette notification done in March 2016 (Ex CW1/3). On this issue, he drew our attention for taking ‘Interim Relief’ on the Sec. 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

He stated that he represents a class of consumers and alleged that OP1 charged Rs 13/- for one carry bag when he purchased packed 5Kg Atta and some other items (Ex CW1/4) on 21/11/2018. It was alleged that bag had advertisement of OP1 and charge of Rs 13/- was taken for carry bag by OP1 which not only amounts to unfair trade practice, but gross violation of GSR (supra). It was alleged that OP1 works under collusion of OP2/Future Group of Mumbai and OP3 as Govt. of Delhi, through its chief secretary.

 

Complainant stated that after purchasing Atta on 21/11/2018, one carry bag was given by OP1 and charged Rs 13/-with packed 5Kg wheat Atta whose cost was Rs 162/. This also amounts to violation of Trade License Agreement and unfair trade practice. Complainant stated that huge number of customers visit OP1 daily and purchase lot of items and forced to purchase carry bag for free advt. of OP1, so through number of consumers as a ‘class of consumers’, he represents as a genuine consumer under the definition of the ‘Act’.

 

Yearly more than 20 crores consumers visit and about 19 crores consumers are compelled to purchase carry bags provided by OP2 and enjoy without any control or fear of Law which is enforced by OP3. Thus, purchasing one carry bag ‘forcefully’ caused huge financial loss to him and mental agony. So filed this complaint and claimed a refund of Rs 13/-with compensation of Rs 2 lacs for making complainant and other consumers as ‘Moving Model’ for advt. He also claimed Rs one lac for mental agony to be paid from OPs jointly with Rs 10,000/-legal expenses. He also stressed for directing OP3 / Delhi Govt. through its Chief Secy. to publish advt. through their Public Relation Officer of the Dept. for not compelling for illegal charges of carry bag from OP1.  

Heard on Admission Hearing -  

The first and foremost point which has arisen in this complaint has been in respect of complainant Mr Radhakrishnan R having filed the complaint as a class action.

He has stated that he has filed the complaint representing a class of consumers. To appreciate whether complainant representing a ‘Class of Consumers’, a look has to be made to Section 2(1)(b) of the Act, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder—

Section 2 (1) (b) –“Complainant” means:-

(i)……………………………... 

(ii)……………………………..

(iii)…………………………….

(iv) One or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest.

(v)…………………………….

A bare reading of this clause shows that ‘where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, one or more consumers can be a ‘complainant’.

It means that there must be more than one consumer having the same interest, though the complaint may be filed by one of the consumer. In the present case, the complaint has been filed by complainant Mr Radhakrishnan R as reflected from the memo of the parties, though he has stated that he has been representing a Class of Consumers. To quote from his complaint, para 3 of the complaints is extracted hereunder :-

 

    “the complainant is representing a class of consumers and a separate  interim  application

      with 3 prayers is filed along with the complaint seeking permission of this Hon’ble Forum

      to proceed with the complaint for and on behalf of them.” 

 

From this para, it is evident that complainant have filed the complaint as a representative of class of consumers. However, there is nothing on record to show that there were more than one consumer who have authorized him to file such a complaint having same interest where as complaint has been filed by the complainant himself. This complaint cannot be termed as a complaint filed on behalf of more consumers.

That being so,he cannot be considered as a ‘Complainant’ within the definition of Section 2(1)(b) of the Act. Thus his complaint cannot be admitted. When his complaint cannot be admitted, consequently his interim application under Section 13(3B) also goes.

 

When the complaint stands rejected, cost of Rs 1000/- is imposed for filing such complaint. The cost be deposited in the District Legal Service Authority, East Delhi District account maintained at Karkarduma District Court within 15 days from the receiving of copy of this order and acknowledgment of compliance of this order be submitted in the Forum’s record file. 

 

The first free  copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per Regulation 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under regulation 20 (1) of the CPR.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                                            Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                                                   

 

                                                 Shri Sukhdev Singh President