Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/20/121

Harpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Big Bazar(Future Retail Ltd.) - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Navdeep Singh Khattra, Adv.

12 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

                                                Consumer Complaint No.121 of 2020

                                                Date of institution: 21.10.2020

                                                Date of Decision: 12.02.2021

 

Harpreet Singh, son of Charan Singh, aged about 29 years, village Badali, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar   

…….Complainant

Versus

1. Big Bazar (Future Retail Limited) Plot No.178-178-A, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002 through its Manager
2. Rahul Kumar, authorized signatory, Big Bazar (Future Retail Limited) Plot No.178-178-A, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002
3. Big Bazar (Future Retail Limited) North Zone Head Office, Future Retail Office, 3er Floor, Plot No.82, Sector 32, Near NIIT Corp. Officer, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Manager-122001   

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                        Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Present:     Sh. N.S. Khattra, Adv. counsel for complainant

O.Ps. ex-parte.

               
 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President and

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs for short) on the ground that while purchasing some articles, the CC was compelled to pay Rs. 19/- extra for carrying those articles and was charged for a carry bag. CC has annexed Ex.C1, wherein the bill of the articles is shown. The CC purchased various articles worth Rs.2615/-. The Bill is attached herewith as Ex.C1 and was compelled to pay Rs.19/- for carrying those articles in a carry bag, which he alleges that they were supposed to provide free of charge. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs. for charging Rs.19/- extra for carrying articles in a carry bag, the CC has sought the following relief:-

1. Refund the illegal charge amount of Rs.19/- for carry bag along with interest with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- etc.

The complaint of the CC signed and supported by an affidavit. Further the CC has annexed Ex.C1. The Bill of the articles showing Rs.19/- charging for carry bag.

2.                   The O.Ps. were duly served and were proceeded against ex-parte vide our order dated 18.12.2020.

3.                    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.

4.                    Since, all the allegations of the CC are un-rebutted, un-challenged and no one has come forward to contest the claim of the CC. We have no alternative except to appreciate the complaint as well as the evidence of the CC, which appears to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. It is on the file that on 25.10.2019, the CC purchased various articles by visiting the Big Bazar, situated in Industrial Area, Plot No.178-178A, Chandigarh. It is the allegations of the CC that he purchased the various articles, which he was supposed to carry home, but while paying the bill, the Manager of the OP No.1 asked the CC to pay extra amount of Rs.19/- for carrying those articles home in a carry bag. CC has termed the action of the O.Ps. illegal, malafide and an unfair trade practice. Further, the CC has claimed that O.Ps. had no right to charge extra Rs.19/- for carrying those articles in a carry bag. It is writ-large on the file that the CC had purchased various articles by paying an amount of Rs.2615/- and had to pay Rs.19/- extra for the carry bag, which we feel is definitely an unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. It is not possible for an ordinary man to carry those small-small articles without any carry bag. At the same time, the O.Ps. had no right to charge separately for the carry bag, which is a definitely a part and parcel of the purchase.

5.                    We, have seen in a number of cases these business men extract more and more money from the poor and genuine consumers in various shapes. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a special Act, which is enacted to prevent the mal practice as well as the unfair trade practice prevailing among the business men. We definitely termed the amount charge for carry bag by the O.Ps as an unfair trade practice on their part.

6.                    The present Act envisages provisions for product liability action on account of harm caused to consumers due to a defective product or policy or by deficiency in service.

7.                    In view of the discussion made above, the present complaint is allowed. Accordingly, it is ordered that the all the O.Ps will refund of Rs.19/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receiving the amount jointly and severally. Further, the O.Ps are burdened to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1000/-   to the CC. Further, we feel that in order to prevent and misuse of such type of activities on the part of the O.Ps, we would like to penalize the O.Ps. with punitive charges will go to the Legal Aid Account of this Commission to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. These punitive compensation/charges are imposed to the O.Ps. to refrain such traders from indulging in this type of activities again and again. We also feel that the O.ps. must have already charged for the carry bags from numerous consumers may be thousands in number, already prior to the passing of this judgment. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

 

February 12, 2021

(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

 

                                PRESIDENT              

 

(Capt. Y.S. Matta)

 

MEMBER