DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.888 of 2019

        Date of institution:  10.06.2019               Date of decision   :  06.08.2020

 

Karan Singla son of Shri Vijay Singla, resident of House No.1816, Nirvana Society, Sector 49/B, Chandigarh.

 

…….Complainant

Versus

 

Brand Factory through its Manager, Cosmo Plaza, Ambala NH-22, Ambala Chandigarh Highway, Opposite Wallmart,  Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.

 

              ……..Opposite Party

 

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President,

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

 

Present: None for the complainant. 

OP Ex-parte. 

 

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

 

 

Order

 

               The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP’ for short), wherein it is mentioned, that he has approached this Commission due to adoption of an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The allegation of the complainant is that he visited the store of the OP in order to purchase a shirt for his personal use on 10.02.2019. It is further mentioned in the complaint that OP charged “Rs.8/- extra” for the carry bag/paper bag, in which the CC was supposed to carry his shirt in addition to the price of the shirt. It is the allegation of the CC that the OP, from whom he had purchased the shirt, had no right to charge for the carry bag/paper bag. It was difficult for the CC to carry the shirt without carry bag out of the store to his house. 

Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the CC has sought the refund of Rs.8/- charged by the OP for the carry bag/paper bag and compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-. Further CC has demanded Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses. Complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by affidavit of the CC.

2. The OP has chosen to remain ex-parte.

3. Since no one has come forward from the side of the OP to contest the claim of the CC and to challenge the veracity of his allegations, as such this Commission has no option except to believe the contents of the complaint filed by CC alongwith documents and decide the complaint submitted by CC. The CC, in support of his complaint has submitted Ex.C-1 the bill issued by OP at the time of purchase of shirt by CC. It is writ-large from perusal of Ex.C-1 that the OP had charged Rs.8/- for the carry bag/paper bag in which the CC was supposed to carry his shirt, in addition to the price of the shirt, which he has purchased from the OP. There is no one from the side of the OP to rebut the invoice/bill Ex.C-1.

4. The point in controversy before us is whether the OP could charge Rs.8/- for the carry bag/paper bag from the CC. It is very surprising that if someone purchases a shirt from a store, or any other article, then, when he/she moves out of the shop, in such circumstances how one could carry the same to his home without any carry bag/paper bag and that too in open by holding the same. We feel, that it was incumbent upon the OP to provide a carry bag or paper bag to the CC free of charge so that he could carry his shirt home safely. We feel, that carry bag is definitely part and parcel of the sale by the OP and the OP had no legal or moral right to charge Rs.8/- extra for the carry bag. We feel, that such type of malpractice adopted by such trader should be curbed with strong hands. There is definitely unfair trade practice adopted by the OP

5. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a benevolent legislature enacted by the Govt. to provide speedy and substantial justice to the parties.  The very purpose of the Act is to curb unfair trade practice adopted by the traders, who make money by adopting such unfair means. We feel, that the very purpose of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 will fail if such type of practice is allowed among traders and in the society. 

6. It is also possible that the OP must have collected thousands of rupees from various customers in such a manner. It is also possible that OP must have continued this practice for years and had collected huge amount. In order to curb such malpractice, it is important to impose special cost on OP so that correct message should go in the society and such traders will think thousand times before adopting this practice again.

7. Accordingly, present complaint is allowed. It is ordered that the OP will refund amount of Rs.8/- to the CC within 30 days after the receipt of copy of this order. The OP will also pay compensation to the CC to the tune of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand only). It is further ordered that the OP will also deposit Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) in the Legal Aid Account of this Commission. This special cost is imposed on  the OP, so that in future it may refrain from adopting such type of malpractice. It is further ordered that OP will comply with order of this District Commission within 30 days failing which the CC will be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on his compensation amount. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.   File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

August 06, 2020

  (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

President

 

 

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member