District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.82/2020.
Date of Institution: 06.02.2020.
Date of Order: 26.07.2022.
Ankit Bhanwal aged 24 years son of Shri Rajpal Bhanwala, resident of F-436/23, 3rd 60 feet road Molarband Extn. Badarpur, New Delhi – 110044.
…….Complainant…. Versus
1. Domino’s Pizza, SCF#143, Ground floor, Sector-37, HUDA market, Faridabad, Haryana – 121003.
2. Jubilant Foodworks Limited, regd. Office –Plot No.1 A, Sector-16A, Noida – 201301(UP)
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Tejveer Bhati, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sachin Parashar, counsel for opposite parties. Nos.1 & 2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Large Peppy Paneer Pizza on dated 19.01.2020from the opposite party No.1 amounting of Rs.624.76/- invoice No. 67246/19/23313 GSTIN:06AABCD1821C1ZF. Pizza was handed over to the complainant in a box. The complainant requested the sever to give pizza in a proper way so he can easily take away his order and requested server for a carry bag. The complainant was charged Rs.13.99/- invoice No. 67246/19/23316 for the carry bag from the opposite party no.1.Opposite parties os.1 & 2 was also neglecting the rules and regulations of Safety and Standards Authority of India as they were not printing there FSSAI License No. neither on box nor on invoice. The complainants made complaint via email. Thereafter the complainant got a call by opposite party No.1 but no satisfying reason was provided by the opposite parties till date. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) stop there unfair trade practices against every customer.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment
c) Cost of miscellaneous expenses (Travel, litigation) i.e. Rs.2000/- to the complainant..
4) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be grant to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the answering opposite party always serve food including pizza etc. in the box with specific size according to the good item to be delivered and in a proper way the complainant was informed regarding the chargeability of the carry bags and it was only after receiving the complainant’s affirmation that the carry bag was given to him. The same fact had been admitted by the complainant in the para under reply. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of “General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain and Anr. Reported as AIR1966SC1644 wherein it had been held that the duty of the court was to interpret the words in which the contract was expressed by the parties, because it was not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties had not made it themselves. Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – Dominos’s Pizza & Another with the prayer to : a) stop there unfair trade practices against every customer. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment. c)Cost of miscellaneous expenses (Travel, litigation) i.e. Rs.2000/- to the complainant. 4) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be grant to the complainant.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Ankt Bhanwala, Ex.CW1/1 & CW1/2 –Invoice, Exs.CW1/3 – Adhaar card,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties - affidavit of Shri Sandeep S/o Shri Ramesh Chander Mehra working at Logix Techno Park, Tower-D, 5th Floor, Sector-127, Noida, the duly authorized signatory of M/s. Dominos, Jubilant Foodworks Ltd. Ex.R1 – order dated 22.03.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ex.R1 – Everyday value – Save Up to 40%., Ex.R2 to R5 – photographs.
6. It is evident from order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, in consumer complaint No. 89 of 29.11.2011 vide Ex.R1 in which 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.”
7. It is evident from the photographs vide Ex. R2 to R5 in which it has been mentioned in bold letters that “CARRY BAGS WILL BE CHARGED EXTRA’.
8. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party is proved in the present case.
9. Resultantly the complaint is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 26.07.2022. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
