Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/638/2019

Ishant Negi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dominos Pizzas, Jubilant Foodworks Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vishnu Kaushik Adv.

05 Nov 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	638 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	15.07.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	05.11.2020

 

 

 

 

Ishant Negi s/o Rajesh Kumar, House No.2246, Sector–C, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Dominos Pizzas, Jubilant Foodworks Limited, Ground Floor, SCO No.308, Sector 38-C&D, Chandigarh 160036 through its Store Manager.

2]  Dominos Pizzas, Jubilant Foodworks Limited, 5^th Floor, Tower D, Plot No.5, Logix Techno Park, Sector 127, Noida 201304 through its Chairman Sh.Shyam S.Bhatia   

   ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                     MEMBER 

                                SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                               

 

 

Argued by :- None for complainant

  Sh.Chetan Gupta, Adv. for OPs.

 

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant on 15.3.2019 made an Online order for Cheese Burst Pizza and one side item for Take Away from the outlet of Dominos Pizza/OP No.1 and visited there for pickup for his order.  It is averred that the total bill amount for the said  order was Rs.544.95 which complainant paid through credit card, but on asking for providing one carry bag, the OP No.1 charged Rs.12/ extra for the same.  The complainant objected this demand of OP No.1, but in vain and the complainant had to paid extra amount of Rs.12/- for carry bag (Ann.C-1 & C-2).  The complainant also sent legal notice to OPs in this regard, but to no effect.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of OPs as unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and inter alia admitting the basic facts of the case.  It is stated that the answering OPs being an environment friendly organization, does not promote usage of carry bags.  It is averred that the carry bags are provided only when specifically asked for by the customer and price thereof is duly intimated to the customer on opting of the same.  It is also averred that the usage of carry bag depends totally upon the discretion of the customer and it is not “the need” of the customer in a case where the pizza is delivered on a “SPILL PROOF” AND “EASY TO CARRY” “CARDBOARD BOX CONTAINER”.  It is submitted that it is clearly mentioned/printed on all of the “Take Away” menu of the answering OPs that “CARRY BAGA WILL BE CHARGED EXTRA”  and hence there is no unfair trade practice adopted by OPs as it up front declares that the carry bags are chargeable.  It is also submitted that if the complainant or any other person prefers to buy the carry bag, he or she has to pay for the same.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for OPs and have gone through the entire record.

 

5]       The Opposite Party has urged that the carry bag was given to the Complainant only upon confirmation from him with respect to the purchase of the paper bag. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as if the Cashier informed the Complainant about the purchase of carry bag before billing, the same amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as it would have been very odd and inconvenient to the Complainant to carry the Pizzas in hand throughout without a carry bag.

 

6]        It is noteworthy that said carry bag for which the Complainant had to shell out extra amount from his pocket, is a printed carry bag on both sides, which has a prominent display of the advertisement of the Opposite Party and is thus apparently serving as an advertisement for them, whenever the said bag is carried by the Consumer. In this manner, the Complainant and other gullible consumers like him have certainly been taken for a ride by the Opposite Party for advertising their name. Thus the act of Opposite Parties by forcing the gullible consumers to pay additionally for the paper bags is surely and certainly amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice.

 

7]       In the light of above observations, we are of the considered view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed:-

1. To refund to the Complainant the amount of Rs.12/- wrongly charged for the carry bag;
2. To pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.  
3. To pay Rs.500/- as litigation expenses.
4. To deposit Rs.10,000/- in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.

          This order shall be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.5,000/- to complainant apart from the above relief.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary (SCDRC), U.T. Chandigarh, for necessary action.

Announced                                                                     

05.11.2020                                                               sd/-

                                      (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER