Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that on 15.03.2020 he visited at the grocery store of Opposite Party for purchasing the grocery articles. The complainant alleges that he purchased the grocery articles, the bill was prepared and issued by Opposite Party and all grocery articles put in cotton bag, which was supplied by the Opposite Party and when the complainant made request that he has a cotton bags for putting the grocery articles, then the employees of the Opposite Party namely Hardeep Kaur refused to put the goods purchased in the bag which was brought by the complainant and told that in the Easy Day club, the private bags are not allowed. Lateron the complainant has seen the bill No. 65824 which was issued by the Opposite Party in which the amount of Rs.11.20 paisa is added on account of carry bag charges. Moreover, on the said carry bag, easy day club was printed. The complainant again requested the official of the Opposite Party not to charge the amount of printed carry bag because he has his own cotton bag which was brought by him from his home, but the official refused and hence the complainant felt very embarrassed and insults and pay the costs of grocery articles alongwith cotton bag in a sum of Rs.11.20 paisa. Said carry bag where easy day club was printed and as per the law, the retailer can not charge the costs of printed carry bag. Moreover, it is not mandatory for the customer to purchase the printed carry bag from the Opposite Party. Hence, there is deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Due to the aforesaid illegal and unwarranted acts, the complainant suffered a lot. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) To direct the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.11.20 paisa alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till its realization and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and deficient service besides Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission, may deem fit be granted.
Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant for the redressal of her grievances.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. The Opposite Party follows an environmentally responsible policy aimed at encouraging customers to carry their own shopping bags, of which suitable notice was provided to the complainant by way of advertisement and posters displayed at prominent locations in the concerned store. It is further submitted that the complainant was expressly informed at the cashier’s counter by the Opposite Party’s representative that in the event of him being desirous of taking a new carry bag for his purchases from the Opposite Party store, he would have to separately pay a sum of Rs.11.20 paisa for it. The said policy is designed to incentivise consumers to carry their own bag and to reuse bas already in their ownership instead of obtaining a fresh paper bag on every purchase, thereby contributing to deforestation and environmental damage. It is submitted that the cashier prepared the bill/ invoice on the instruction of the consumer that he wished to separately purchase a carry bag. The price of the carry bag was added to the invoice only after the complainant had been specifically asked whether he wished to purchase a carry bag for an additional charges and after the complainant replied in the affirmative thereto. It is further submitted that Opposite Party is not selling carry bags commercially and is only reimbursing itself for a part of the price incurred by it in procuring the carry bags. The complainant has deliberately sought to present a distorted picture of the facts in order to make excessive profits for itself and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. In nutshell, on merits, the Opposite Party took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, it is prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copy of invoice Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party also tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Hardeep Singh Jassal Ex.OP1 alongwith copy of document Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that on 15.03.2020 the complainant visited at the grocery store of Opposite Party for purchasing the grocery articles. Further contended that the complainant purchased the grocery articles, the bill was prepared and issued by Opposite Party and all grocery articles put in cotton bag, which was supplied by the Opposite Party and when the complainant made request that he has a cotton bags for putting the grocery articles, then the employees of the Opposite Party namely Hardeep Kaur refused to put the goods purchased in the bag which was brought by the complainant and told that in the Easy Day club, the private bags are not allowed. Lateron the complainant has seen the bill No. 65824 which was issued by the Opposite Party in which the amount of Rs.11.20 paisa is added on account of carry bag charges. Moreover, on the said carry bag, easy day club was printed. The complainant again requested the official of the Opposite Party not to charge the amount of printed carry bag because he has his own cotton bag which was brought by him from his home, but the official refused and hence the complainant felt very embarrassed and insults and pay the costs of grocery articles alongwith cotton bag in a sum of Rs.11.20 paisa. Said carry bag where easy day club was printed and as per the law, the retailer can not charge the costs of printed carry bag. Moreover, it is not mandatory for the customer to purchase the printed carry bag from the Opposite Party and hence, there is deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant and contended that Opposite Party follows an environmentally responsible policy aimed at encouraging customers to carry their own shopping bags, of which suitable notice was provided to the complainant by way of advertisement and posters displayed at prominent locations in the concerned store. Further contended that the complainant was expressly informed at the cashier’s counter by the Opposite Party’s representative that in the event of him being desirous of taking a new carry bag for his purchases from the Opposite Party store, he would have to separately pay a sum of Rs.11.20 paisa for it. The said policy is designed to incentive consumers to carry their own bag and to reuse bas already in their ownership instead of obtaining a fresh paper bag on every purchase, thereby contributing to deforestation and environmental damage. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party further contended that the cashier prepared the bill/ invoice on the instruction of the consumer that he wished to separately purchase a carry bag. The price of the carry bag was added to the invoice only after the complainant had been specifically asked whether he wished to purchase a carry bag for an additional charges and after the complainant replied in the affirmative thereto. The Opposite Party is not selling carry bags commercially and is only reimbursing itself for a part of the price incurred by it in procuring the carry bags. The complainant has deliberately sought to present a distorted picture of the facts in order to make excessive profits for itself and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
8. The purchase of the grocery items by the complainant from the store of Opposite Party vide invoice dated 15.03.2020 is not disputed and it is also not disputed that in the said invoice, the Opposite Party has charged Rs.11.20 paisa on account of cotton bag price. The case of the complainant is that since the said carry bag was printed and hence, the Opposite Party can not charge the price of printed carry bag which was solely meant of advertisement of Easy Day Club and it is not disputed by the Opposite Party that said carry bag was not printed carry bag. Now the question is that whether the Opposite Party can charge the price of printed carry bag which was solely meant of advertisement of Easy Day Club. The answer to this question is in negative. In this regard, we are also supported the judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide which Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has disposed of the fourteen (14) Petitions vide the instant common order, with the Revision Petition No. 975 of 2020 being taken as the lead–case on 22.12.2020 titled as Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar (Against the Order dated 18/05/2020 in Appeal No. 238/2019 of the State Commission Chandigarh), in which, the Hon’ble National Commission has held to the following affect:
6. The factum of charging additional price for providing carry bags to its customers has not been disputed by the OP. The argument put forward by the OP is that the rates and photographs of the carry bags are displayed at various display boards in the store and the carry bags are sold on no profit no loss basis and the consumers are requested to carry their own bags and that a separate charge would be payable in case the consumer wished to obtain a new carry bag. However, we are not impressed with this argument of the OP because the big stores like the OP 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 OP is, therefore, taking advantage of its dominating position.
7. 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 OP.
8. Besides this, if the Opposite Party 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 OP. By employing unfair trade practice, the OP is minting lot of money from the gullible customers from all their stores situated across the country.
It may be noted that carry bags, sold at a particular price to the consumer, are in themselves ‘goods’, and, as such, are themselves, too, within the ambit of the statute for “better protection of the interests of consumers”. It cannot be that the said goods (i.e. the carry bags) are imposed on the consumer, without disclosing their salient specifications, at the price fixed by the Opposite Party Co., without prior notice or information that (additional) cost will be charged for them.
9. Not only this, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Bata India Limited vs Dinesh Parshad Raturi decided on 22 July, 2019 has held that firstly charging for a paper bag and secondly, putting its logo i.e. " Bata Surprisingly Stylish" on the same is a clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant/opposite party. The relevant para of the judgement is reproduced as under:-
7. We may also state here that firstly charging for a paper bag and secondly, putting its logo i.e. " Bata Surprisingly Stylish" on the same is a clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant/opposite party. In our recent judgment in the case of Westside, a unit of Trent Limited Vs. Sapna Vasudev, referred to above, this Commission has already held the act of charging for a paper bag and putting Company's Logo on it, to be an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the seller. Relevant Paras 10 to 11 of the judgment reads thus:-
"10. However, on merits of the case, it may be stated here similar controversy qua charging for paper bags came before this Commission in the case of " M/s. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Chandgothia & Anr.', Appeal bearing No.24 of 2019 decided on 18.03.2019, wherein this Commission held in Paras 11 to 15, inter-alia, as under:-
"11. So far as reliance placed by the appellant/opposite party on Rule 10 of The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 and Rule 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016, published vide notification dated 18.03.2016, issued by Ministry of Environments and Forests is concerned, we would like to first extract the aforesaid Rule hereunder:-
"10. Explicit pricing of carry bags. - No carry bag shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers. The concerned municipal authority may by notification determine the minimum price for carry bags depending upon their quality and size which covers their material and waste management cost in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation."
10. In view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we direct the Opposite Party-Easy Day to make the lump sum compensation to the Complainant amounting to Rs.3,000/- (three thousands only) on account of mental tension and harassment as well as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 24.06.2020 till its realisation. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
11. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:08.03.2022.
