BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.217 of 2019
Date of Institution : 1.5.2019
Date of Decision : 28.08.2019.
Samridhi Jain, aged 25 years, daughter of Shri Parveen Kumar Jain, resident of Hansi, District Hisar, now resident at Girls Hostel Har Ki Devi Bhawan Campus of Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Easy Day, Future Retail Limited, situated at Prof. Baljit Kaur Tower, 15/983, Bhagat Singh Colony, Barnala Road, Opposite Punjab National Bank, Sirsa 125055.
- Easy Day (Bharti Retail Limited), Block-F/123, Vikas Puri, New Delhi- 110018, through its authorized person/ signatory).
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA………………………..PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL…………MEMBER
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….……MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person with Sh. K.S. Gill, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. P.K. Bagria, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant approached the store of op no.1 for some domestic needs on 22.4.2019 and purchased one Brown Bread and one CAN of Peanut Butter 340 grams and the employee of no.1 issued bill of Rs.184/- and one another bill of Rs.4/- for the carry bag. It is further averred that op no.1 handed over the items without providing any carry bag to the complainant and on demanding the carry bag for the items purchased by her, the op no.1 stated that for the carry bag, she has to pay extra amount of Rs.4/- to the store and only after that they will provide the carry bag to the complainant and when the complainant raised protest for this attitude of op no.1, they misbehaved with the complainant. That with no alternate as she was already carrying so much stuff with her, she under protest paid Rs.4/- for the carry bag to the op no.1. It is further submitted that the food items purchased by complainant from the ops’ store is also of bad quality. Due to consuming of food of ops, the complainant also suffered from vomiting and remained ill for 2-3 days and suffered pecuniary and non pecuniary loss. The complainant is a law student and is doing LLB from CDLU, Sirsa and is residing in Hostel and as she fell ill, it also resulted into loss of her studies. It is further averred that complainant had no intention to purchase the carry bag, rather it was the moral duty of every departmental/ general/ grocery store to provide the carry bag for the purchases made by its consumer. They have no right to charge the amount for the carry bag. But the complainant was forced to pay price of the carry bag. The bag was being used as advertisement by op no.1 as on the carry bag which is annexed with the complaint, it was printed as “Easyday Club for Members”. Thus, at the cost of the consumer, she was being used as advertisement agent of the “Easyday Club for Members”. It is further submitted that due to above said act and conduct of op, complainant suffered disturbance and as such undergone much mental tension, agony and humiliation, hence, besides the refund of Rs.4/-, she is also entitled to compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for unnecessary harassment and also entitled to another amount of Rs.42,000/- on account of litigation expenses and also seeks direction to the ops to provide free carry bags to all customers. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that ops follow 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 advertisements and posters displayed at prominent locations in the concerned store. It is further submitted that complainant was expressly informed at the cashier’s counter by the op’s representative that in the event of her being desirous of taking a new carry bag for her purchases from the op’s store, she would have to separately pay a sum of Rs.4/- for it. The said policy is designed to incentivize customers to carry their own bag and to reuse bags already in their ownership instead of obtaining a fresh bag on every purchase, thereby contributing to deforestation and other environmental damage. It is further submitted that complainant has sought to present a distorted picture by alleging that the price of the carry bag viz. Rs.4/- was forced to be paid. The cashier prepared the bill/ invoice on the instruction of the consumer that she wished to separately purchase carry bag and which is clearly reflected from the fact that invoice for the same has been properly issued. It is further submitted that op is not selling carry bags commercially and is not earning profits out of the same and is only reimbursing itself for a part of the price incurred by it in procuring the carry bags. The cost price of the bag provide by op is in fact higher than the price of Rs.4/-. It is further submitted that ops have an internal consumer redressal system, however, the complainant instead of availing of the same has resorted to the present proceedings in an attempt to claim disproportionate damages. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has contended strongly that it is proved case of the complainant that on 22.4.2019 she purchased one Brown Bread and one CAN of Peanut Butter 340 grams and the employee of no.1 issued bill of Rs.184/- and one another bill of Rs.4/- for the carry bag. He has further contended that op no.1 handed over the items without providing any carry bag to the complainant and on demanding the carry bag for the items purchased by her, the op no.1 stated that for the carry bag, she has to pay extra amount of Rs.4/- to the store and only after that they will provide the carry bag to the complainant and when the complainant raised protest for this attitude of op no.1, they misbehaved with the complainant. That with no alternate as she was already carrying so much stuff with her, she under protest paid Rs.4/- for the carry bag to the op no.1. He has further contended that the food items purchased by complainant from the ops’ store were also of bad quality and due to consuming of same, the complainant also suffered from vomiting and remained ill for 2-3 days and suffered pecuniary and non pecuniary loss. The bag was being used as advertisement by op no.1 and it was printed “Easyday Club for Members” on the carry bag. In this way at the cost of the consumer, she was being used as the advertisement agent of the “Easyday Club for Members” and this clearly amounts to un-trade practice on the part of the ops. He has relied upon judgment of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled as “Dinesh Parshad Raturi Vs. Bata India Limited, C.C. No.64 of 2019 decided on 9.4.2019.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has contended that the carry bag was purchased by the complainant herself by paying Rs.4/- to the ops. There is no scheme or law to provide carry bag free of cost. The complainant was expressly informed at the cashier’s counter by the ops’ representative that in the event of her being desirous of taking new carry bag for her, she will have to pay sum of Rs.4/-. The ops’ company is a reputed organization committed to highest standards of customer satisfaction. The ops have an internal consumer redressal system but the complainant instead of availing the said remedy has resorted to file the present proceedings in an attempt to claim disproportionate damages. He has further contended that as a part of its responsible and environmentally conscious business policy, consumers are requested to carry their own bags and that a separate charges would be payable in case the consumer wished to obtain a new carry bag. Thus, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and gone through the record and judgment relied upon by the complainant.
8. Undisputedly, the complainant has purchased aforesaid food items from the op no.1 on payment which is evident from the bill Ex.C2. She has also paid Rs.4/- for cost of carry bag and has also tendered the bill Ex.C3 in this regard. She has also tendered the carry bag Ex.C4 on which the words “Easyday Club for Members” are printed and this printing shows that these carry bags are being used by the ops for their source of advertisement. The counsel for the ops has not shown any provision of law under which the ops are authorized to charge for their advertising materials which is being provided to the customers like complainant. Moreover, the goods are supplied by the dealer/ shop keepers to the consumers for their consideration and they are supposed to provide the carry bag in order to carry the goods purchased by the consumers but however, in the present case, the ops started raising demand of Rs. 4/- on account of carry bag which clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the ops.
9. In view of the above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of Rs.4/- and further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the above said amounts from the date of order till actual payment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated:28.08.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
