Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/115

Rajpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Easyday Club - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Kumar Adv.

24 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 115 dated 24.07.2020                                                        Date of decision:24.07.2023

Rajpal Singh s/o late Mohinder Singh, r/o VPO Chehlan, Ludhiana Road, Samarla, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana-141114.                                                                                                                     ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Easyday Club, Ward No.09, #221, Chandigarh Road, Adjoining Capital Local Bank, Samarla-141114.

                                                                                      …..Opposite Party

Complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS.MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Mohit Vashisht, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh.Ajay Chawla, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                           The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by raising a consumer dispute against the OP with regard to illegally charging of Rs.7/- from the complainant by them on account of carry bag i.e. in the name of Non-Woven Fabri “X30” for carrying the articles. So, by filing the present complaint, complainant has prayed that OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice along with Rs.20,000/- towards mental pain and agony and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite part who filed the written statement. The opposite party took the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is baseless and misconceived as the complainant has erroneously alleged that the OP has illegally charged Rs.7/- for the carry bag purchased by the complainant. However, it is submitted that the complainant has concealed the material facts. The OP followed 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. The complainant was expressly informed at the cashier’s counter by the OP representative that in the event of him being desirous of taking a new carry bag for his purchases from the OP store, he would have to separately pay a sum of Rs.7/- for it. The said policy is designed to incentivize consumers to carry their own bag and to reuse bags already in their ownership instead of obtaining a fresh Non-Woven Fabric Size 30’ on every purchase, thereby contributing to deforestation and environmental damage. It is submitted that the complainant has sought to present a distorted picture by alleging that the price of the carry bag, viz., Rs.7/- was added to the price of garments without the consent of the consumer. However, it is submitted that the casher 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 charge and after the complainant replied in affirmative thereto. On merits, all other allegations levelled in the complaint against the answering OP have been specifically denied and it is prayed that the complaint against answering OPs is liable to be dismissed.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated her averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record Ex.C1 copy of invoice/receipt dated 20.03.2020 qua charging of Rs.7/- on account of Non-Woven Fabric by OP and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Jatin Khurana, District Manager of OP and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record on the file very carefully along with written arguments filed by the complainant.

6.                During the course of proceedings, counsel for the OP has contended that the OP company shall be under moratorium as Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-II has passed directions in this regard in case titled as Bank of India versus Future Retail Limited in CP(IB)-527(MB)/2022 against order dated 22.07.2022. The relevant para 8(d) of the aforesaid order is reproduced as under:-

“That this Bench hereby prohibits the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration, panel or other authority, transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; any action to foreclose, recover enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2022; the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the Corporate Debtor.”

7.                Since it has already been observed hereinabove that in a petition filed by Bank of India against the present defendant, a moratorium has already been declared by National Company Law Tribunal under Section 14 of the Code, therefore, it would not be possible for this Commission to continue with the proceedings of the present case. In this regard, our view are further fortified by observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Mr/Anand Rao Korada Resolution Professional vs. M/s Varsha Fabrics (P) Ltd. and others-Civil Appeal Nos.8800-8801 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.23349-23350 of 2019) decided on 18.11.2019. Resultantly, the proceedings in the present complaint are adjourned sine-die. However, the file shall be taken up and the proceedings shall be revived as and when any of the party approaches this Commission after the final disposal of the petition filed against the present OP stands disposed of by National Company Law Tribunal. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)           (Jaswinder Singh)   (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                          Member                       President        Announced in Open Commission                                            Dated:24.07.2023                                                                                    Gurpreet Sharma.