Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/301/2023

VANDANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DECATHLON - Opp.Party(s)

AMANPREET KAUR

03 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/301/2023
Date of Institution	:	15.06.2023
Date of Decision	:	03/07/2024

             

VANDANA W/O MANDEEP SINGH SAINI R/0 1736 SECTIOR 34 D CHANDIGARH.

Versus

DECATHLON, NEXT TO DHILLON BURJ ONE, CHANDIGARH AMBALA HIGHWAY, ZIRAKPUR, PUNJAB THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/OWNER/MANAGER.

… Opposite Party

 

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person (through VC)
	:	Sh. Shrey Goel, Advocate for OP.

 

 [2]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/303/2023
Date of Institution	:	15.6.2023
Date of Decision	:	03/07/2024

             

MR PREM PRATAP S/O SH. ATMARAM SUTHAR, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 2539, SECTOR 39 C, CHANDIGARH.

…. Complainant

V E R S U S

DECATHLON, NEXT TO DHILLON BURJ ONE, CHANDIGARH AMBALA HIGHWAY, ZIRAKPUR, PUNJAB THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/OWNER/MANAGER

….Opposite Party

[3]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/305/2023
Date of Institution	:	15.6.2023
Date of Decision	:	03/07/2024

             

MANDEEP SINGH SAINI S/o Manmohan Singh R/0 1736 SECTIOR 34 D CHANDIGARH.

Versus

 

DECATHLON, NEXT TO DHILLON BURJ ONE, CHANDIGARH AMBALA HIGHWAY, ZIRAKPUR, PUNJAB THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/OWNER/MANAGER.

… Opposite  Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Vandana, Advocate proxy for Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Advocate for complainant (through VC).
	:	Sh. Shrey Goel, Advocate for OP.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

 

1.     By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints in which common questions of law and facts are involved.
2.         The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No 301 of 2023 titled as Vandana Vs. Decathlon.   

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  the complainant is a resident of Chandigarh  and on 14.5.2023 purchased one item from the store of OP  by paying an amount of Rs.799/-  . It is alleged that when the complainant got the bill Annexure C-1, it was found that the OP had illegally charged Rs.12/- for carry bag from the complainant. The complainant objected extra charging of Rs.12/- for the carry bag and also on the ground that the OP has been advertising its brand on the said carry bag but the sale executive bluntly said that he is aware of this fact but it is a company policy and he cannot do anything. It is further averred that the OP is duty bound  not to charge for carry bag from any consumer and the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to mal-practice and unfair trade practice and the OPs are earning huge profit by collecting charges for carry bag illegally which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. In this manner, the aforesaid act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of material facts and malafide act on the part of the complainant by filing false complaint against the OP. It is alleged that  in fact the complainant Vandana and her husband Mandeep Singh Saini (complainant in connected complaint CC/305/2023)  are habitual of filing false and frivolous complaints against the OP just to extract money from it. Even  in all the  OP’s store sign boards are displayed which inform  that  the customer can bring their own carry bags  to the store and also that r multipurpose carry bags are available for purchase on different rates  and this fact has been  concealed  by the complainant in the complaint.  It is denied that the OP advertising its brand through the multipurpose bags. In fact multipurpose bags are product of OP  which mandatorily required to be branded and the OP is not bound to provide the same free of cost to the customers. In fact it is  apparent from the complaint that the complainant has purchased  the  multipurpose bag at the cost of Rs.12/- voluntarily and has filed  false and frivolour complaint against the OP just to extract money from it. On the relevant date and time  the complainant had purchased the  multipurpose bag  at the cost of Rs.12/-  and on the same day her husband Mandeep Singh Saini (complainant in connected complaint CC/305/2023) who purchased items worth Rs.599/-  from the store of the OP could have adjusted the same in one and same carry bag but in order to extract money from the OP they both have filed false and frivolous complaints against the OP.  Another complainant Prem Partap (complainant in CC/303/2023)  has also filed complaint against the OP knowing well that he purchased the multipurpose  carry hag from the OP voluntarily and while filing complaint concealed this fact  from this Commission. Not only this, the OP provided basket to the customers to carry their goods upto  their vehicles, which is clear from the photographs Annexure R-4. It is alleged that as the complainant was allowed to bring her own carry bag or to purchase the multipurpose bag from the OP and she purchased the multipurpose bag from the OP voluntarily, the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested
3. In replication, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

3. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments of complainant.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the complainant had purchased one multipurpose carry bag from the  OP when she had purchased some item from the store of the OP and the OP had charged Rs.12/- for the multipurpose carry bag, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the OP was required to provide multipurpose  carry bag free of cost to the complainant for which it charged Rs.12/- from the complainant  as is evident from Annexure C-1 and the said act of OP amounts to   indulgence in unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for  or if the multipurpose carry bag was purchased by the complainant voluntarily and she filed a false and frivolous complaint  and the same is liable to be dismissed  as is the defence of the OP.
   2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the documentary evidence placed on record by the parties, in order to determine the real controversy between the parties the same are required to be scanned carefully.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that  as it proved on record that the OP had charged an amount of Rs.12/- for the multipurpose carry bag from the complainant for carrying the items purchased by the complainant from the store of the OP on the relevant date and time, the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for.
5. On the other hand the counsel for OP contended that the complainant is habitual of filing false and frivolous complaints against the OP and the OP has already displayed in its store through various sign boards that customers can bring their own carry bag  or multipurpose carry bag with cost  of Rs.12/- for paper bag and Rs.45/- for jute bag which are available with the OP which can be purchased by the customer from the OP and as the complainant herself voluntarily purchased the subject carry bag from the OP the complaint of the complainant being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed.
6. There is force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the OP. A perusal of Annexure R-1 clearly indicates that the subject multipurpose carry bags have been manufactured by the OP and have been displayed for the sale in its store. Not only this, even Annexure R-2 and R-3 the photographs clearly indicate that the OP had displayed the sign boards in its store which clearly indicate that the OP had allowed the customers to bring their own bags  and has also offered to sell paper bag at the cost of Rs.12/- and Jute bag for Rs.45/-. Annexure R-4  the photograph clearly indicates that  baskets were also provided by the OP to the customer to carry the goods from the store upto to their vehicles.
7. Annexure R-6  to R-8 are copies of orders passed by the District Commission, in the similar cases holding that as the OP had already given information through various sign boards  regarding the price of the multipurpose carry bag available for purchase at its store and there is nothing in the present case that the complainant was forced to purchase the multipurpose carry bag  by the OP and  forcibly charged amount from the complainant for the multipurpose carry bags, thus, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable
8. Moreover, when it has come on record that every customer visiting the OP store was aware of the fact that they were allowed to bring their own carry bags or to purchase a multipurpose carry bag available with the OP on different sizes and rates manufactured by the OP, which are eco-friendly and even the said information was displayed on the sign boards in the store of the OP ,  it is unsafe to hold that the OP had illegally charged Rs.12/- for the carry bag from the complainant as it was  for the complainant to purchase or not to purchase the carry bag and there was no compulsion for her to purchase the said carry bag. Hence, the complainant has miserably failed to prove her case and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.     In the light of the aforesaid discussion, all the above captioned consumer complaints, being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
6. A certified copy of this order be also placed on the file of other  connected consumer complaints, mentioned above, which shall form part and parcel of the that file.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

sd/-  [Pawanjit Singh]

President

3/7/2024                                                        sd/-

[Surjeet Kaur] Member Sd/-

[Suresh Kumar Sardana]

Member