Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/109

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Easy Day Store - Opp.Party(s)

Jarnail Singh

25 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                 Consumer Complaint No.  109of 23.07.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    25.10.2019

 

 

Sh. Satnam Singh son of Sh. Nachhattar Singh, resident of VPO Bela, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

Easy Day Store, Future Retail Limited, Khasra No.3025, 637, 3024, Morinda, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar through its Store Manager       

   ....Opposite Party

 

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant  

O.P. ex-parte 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to provide free carry bags to all the customer forthwith who purchase articles from its shop/store; to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.4/- wrongly charges for the carry bag; to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges; any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deems fit may also be granted in the interest  of justice.   

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 24.7.2019, the complainant selected and purchased certain articles from the O.P. store and took them to the billing counter for making necessary payment. At the counter, the cashier handed over the said articles, without putting them into a carry bag, and when he asked him to provide the carry bag to put the said articles into the same then the cashier has put the articles into the carry bag and had asked for an amount of Rs.77/- as the bill price and the articles which were purchased by him were given to the complainant in a carry bag by cashier of the O.P. Thereafter, when the complainant saw the invoice/receipt then he was shocked to see that the O.P. had charged Rs.4/- for carry bag.  The O.P. had wrongly and illegally charged Rs.4/- as a cost of carry bag and the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P. Hence, this complaint   

3.    On being put to notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P., accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.10.2019. 

4.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with document Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.  

5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.    The complainant counsel Sh. Jarnail  Singh, argued that the complainant selected the certain articles on 27.4.2019 from the O.P. After purchase, the cashier handed over the articles to the complainant on payment of Rs.77/-. When the complainant asked the O.P. to provide carry bag and put the articles into the same then cashier put the articles into carry bag by charging of Rs.4/-. The learned counsel prayed that it is duty of the O.P. to provide carry bag free of cost and by charging Rs.4/- against carry bag, amounts to deficiency in service.

7.    Complainant in support of his claim, placed on file Ex.C2 tax invoice/receipt dated 27.4.2019 and the receipt includes of Rs.4/- against the item 4202 (1) EA. Appreciating the receipt and evidence, it is held that it is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable.

8.    Coming to the deficiency part, it is prime duty of the complainant to prove that there is deficiency in service or malpractice. No doubt, complaint itself speaks the purchase of only of the item against Rs.77/- and after purchase the representative of O.P. handed over the articles to the complainant and when the complainant demanded the carry bag then the O.P. supplied the same to him by charging Rs.4/-. Firstly, the complainant himself demanded the carry bag and when complainant demanded the carry bag then the opinion comes that O.P. did not force the complainant to purchase the carry bag.

                             Complainant counsel relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh, in Appeal No.98 of 2019, titled as Bata India Limited Vs Dinesh Parshad Raturi, decided on 22.7.2019, in the above said law, the District Forum, as well as the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh, held that O.P. is duty bound to provide free carry bag to all the customers who purchase the item from their shop and charging price amounts to unfair trade practice. After detailed discussion, the law is laid down that O.P. charged the price qua the carry bag that was ordered to be returned back with costs.

                  Coming to the case in hand, the complainant himself demanded carry bag and himself purchased the expiry date item with only on the payment of Rs.12.50/- and by getting benefit of minus Rs.37.50/-.

                  There is one another authority/order of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, in First Appeal No.163 of 2019, titled as Radhakrishnan. R Vs. Big Bazar, Mayur Vihar Extension, Unit of Future Retail Limited and its relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

                  " It may also add that the gazette notification relied upon by the appellant is simple to the effect that plastic bag would not be used in order to save environment. But it does not mean that the shop keeper has to supply carry bag. The intending purchaser must carry bag from his house. If he prefer not to carry bag and wants the shop keeper supply the same, he must pay extra for it. Consumer Protection Act is meant for saving consumer from being exploited. It is not meant for wind fall or making purchaser millionaire over night. In this regard reliance can be placed on decision of Hon'ble National Commission, in FA No.847 of 2017, titled as Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta Vs Vodafone East Limited".

          9.     Appreciating the laws laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in First Appeal No.847 of 2017, titled as Dr. Uttamkumar Samanta Vs Vodafone East Limited and 4 Others & Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, it is held that complaint was not able to prove deficiency in service and the same stands dismissed.

       10.      After appraising the present case, the forum has found that for meager amount of Rs.4/- i.e. charges of carry bag, the complainant has sought the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.20,000/-, which on the face of it disproportionately high and on the face of it is unreasonable and albeit absurd. It is clearly evident that the complainant is attempting is misuse the statutory processes provided for better protection of the interest of consumers to attempt wrong gains and to create 'nuisance value' qua the O.P. The complaint is frivolous as well as vexatious. It is also to be seen that the time and resources of this forum have been wasted in such manner and for such evident purpose. It is, thus, also appropriate and albeit necessary. This forum has also noted that the complainant is well educated person who prepared this complaint in a misplaced and in irrational approach towards consumer justice through machinery of Consumer Fora.

11.             Referring this judgment cover all the four corners of the judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in FA No.847 of 2017, titled as Dr. Uttam Samanta Vs Vodafone East Limited, decided on 5.10.2018. So on the basis of authorities referred above, no benefit can be extended to the complainant. Hence, the complaint stands dismissed. Leaving the parties to bear their own cost.  

         12.   The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of   costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to   Record Room.     

            ANNOUNCED                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

            Dated.25.10.2019                                     PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                              (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                             MEMBER