DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.21 of 2020

Date of Instt.20.01.2020

Date of Decision: 28.09.2021

Jatinder Arora, Advocate aged 51 years son of Sh. Tilak Raj Arora Resident of 239, Chotti Baradari, Part-1, Jalandhar.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. Domino’s Pizza, 127-L, Ground Floor and First Floor, Model Town, Jalandhar through its Manager.

2. The Manager, Domino’s Pizza, 127, Ground Floor and First Floor, Model Town, Jalandhar.

3. The Regional Manager, Domino’s Pizza India, AF-1-3, AF-46, 47, Aditya City Centre Mall, Plot No.C/GH-3, VaibhavKhand, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad – 201014.

..…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)

Present: Sh. Dikshit Nanda, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. D. S. Dhanoa, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 to 3.

Order

Kuljit Singh(President)

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments thatcomplainant purchased one garlic bread, one chicken meat bolls alongwith cheesy dip from the OPs on 12.04.2019 for Rs.243.40/- vide invoice No.65798/19/166397 and OP charged Rs.12/- for paper carry bag vide invoice No.65798/19/166407 dated 12.04.2019. Complainant requested the official of OPs that he cannot charge the amount for paper carry bag as the same is unfair trade practice but the person sitting on cash counter misbehaved with the complainant and openly told him that if he dare to take any action he would face the dire consequences. There is great deficiency and negligence in services on the part of OPs. Lastly, prayer has been made that OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and negligence for mental tension and harassment and he also claimed Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses and refund of Rs.12.00/- for carry bag.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs who has filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; complaint lacks bonafide and it has been filed only to confuse the fact of the case with ulterior motive harass the asking OPs; complainant is accused of suppression true and material fact from this Forum. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has failed to show as to what mental tension of harassment he has suffered moreover a highly aggregated amount has been claimed. Other averments of complaint is denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.

4. Rejoinder not filed.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesand have also gone through written arguments of the parties as well as case file very carefully.

6. Firstly, counsel for Ops has argued that as per Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, under the heading “Explicit Pricing of carry bag, no carry bag shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers and the concerned Municipal Authority shall determine the minimum price of carry bags depending upon their quality and size, which covers their material and waste management costs in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation.But the OPs has failed to produce on record any documents in this regard.

7. The factum of charging additional price for providing carry bags to its customers has not been disputed by the opposite party. The argument put forward by the opposite parties is that on 12.04.2019, the complainant purchased said produced and OP charged Rs.12/- for paper carry bag, however at the time of said order the complainant was given the option of carry bag to which he agreed and he was further made aware that is option and for his convenience and moreover if he agrees/opt for the carry bag he will be charged accordingly and later the charge was quoted to him.However, we are not impressed with this argument of the opposite parties because the big stores like the opposite party never allowed the customers to carry bags in their hands within their store premises knowing very well that if they are allowed then the customers will not easily give their consent for the purchase of the carry bags. The opposite partiesare therefore, taking advantage of its dominating position.

8. At any rate, the opposite party has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence in the shape of any rules / instructions authorizing it to levy charge additionally for the carry bag from the gullible Consumers. In this backdrop, charges of such things (carry bags) cannot be separately foisted upon the consumers and the same would amount to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

9. Besides this, if the opposite parties claims itself to be responsible and environmentally conscious, then they should have given the carry bags to the customers free of cost because in our considered view, the price of the carry bag has generally been included by them in the profit margins of the product(s). It was for gain of the opposite party. By employing unfair trade practice, the opposite party is minting lot of money from the innocent customers from all their stores situated across the country.

10. It is also argued by Learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the purchase of carry bag is entirely optional and is a voluntary act by a consumer. However, in the same breath, it was also contended by him that the customers cannot bring their own carry bags containing items/goods purchased from other shops. Even otherwise, as per the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties, on the one hand, purchase of carry bags is made optional & voluntary but at the same time, the consumer / customer is not allowed to enter the shop with their own carry bags containing some goods purchased from other shop premises. We cannot expect that for every single item/article intended to be purchased by a customer, he/she needs to carry separate carry bags. For e.g. if a customer wants to purchase, say about 15 in number, daily-use goods/articles like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad, soap, toothpaste, shaving cream, pen, pencil etc., from different shops, we cannot expect him/her to take 15 carry bags from home, for the same. Thus, by not allowing the customers to carry their own carry bags by the appellant in its premises, there was no option left with them to buy the carry bags alongwith the goods purchased, to carry the same from the shop premises. One cannot be expected to take the goods like macroni pep, detol, oreo; cop urad etc., purchased, in hands. By not allowing the customers to bring in the shop premises, their own carry bags, and thrusting its own carry bags against consideration, the opposite party is deficient in providing service and also indulged into unfair trade practice.

11. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi recently has decided 14 Revision Petition Nos.975 to 988 of 2020 which have been disposed off vide common Order dated 22.12.2020 with the Revision Petition No. 975 of 2020 titled “Big Bazaar (Future Retail Limited) Versus Ashok Kumar” being taken as the lead–case. The Hon’ble National Commission in Para No.15 of the said Order has ordered as under: “The Opposite Party Co. through its Chief Executive is ordered under Section 39(1)(g) of the Act 2019 [corresponding Section 14(1)(f) of the Act 1986] to forthwith discontinue its unfair trade practice of arbitrarily and highhandedly imposing additional cost of carry bags on the consumer at the time of making payment, without prominent prior notice and information before the consumer makes his choice of patronizing its retail outlets and before the consumer makes his selection of goods for purchase, as also without disclosing the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. The necessary notice / signs / announcement / advertisement / warning should be in the place and manner as may enable the consumer to make his informed choice of whether or not to patronize its retail outlets, and whether or not to make his selection of goods for purchase from its retail outlets. The notice or information cannot be at the occasion of making payment, after the consumer has exercised his choice to patronize its retail outlet, and after he has made his selection of goods for purchase.”

12. The facts of the said citation are fully applicable on the complaint in hand. So, charging of Rs.12/- additionally on account of carry bag by the opposite parties are not legal, as such, complainant is entitled for the relief.

13. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to refund cost of carry bag Rs.12/- to the complainant and to pay him Rs.500/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses and also to deposit Rs.1000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

14. Compliance of this order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

15. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

28^th of September 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)

Jaswant Singh Dhillon

(Member)