Haryana

Panchkula

CC/266/2019

MRS. ZINIA SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIRSTCRY .COM & ANOTHER. - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL SINGHAL

10 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA

                                                      

Consumer Complaint No	:	266 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	10.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	10.12.2019

 

Mrs. Zinia Sharma w/o Sh. Sanjeev Sharma r/o H.No.386, Sector-15, Panchkula, Haryana- 134115.

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

1.     Firstcry.Com through its Store Manager, SCO-343, Sector-9, Panchkula Haryana.

2.     Mahindra Retail Limited through its Director 4^th floor, Gopala Krishna Complex, #45/3, Residency Road, Off  MG Road, Bengaluru-560025.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Vishal Singhal and Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocates for the complainant.  

OPs No.1 & 2 already ex-parte vide order dated 02.07.2019

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant visited the retail outlet of the OPs at their store in Sector-9, Panchkula (OP No.1) on 10^th January 2019 and purchased one Fisher Price Toy for giving it as gift to one of her visiting relative children. The purchase was amounting to Rs.2306.73 and paid another Rs.15 towards gift wrapping of the said toy. The complainant was also charged Rs.10 towards carry bag charges and the total bill comes to Rs.2331.73. The complainant was surprised that amount of Rs.10 charged towards the cost of carry bag which the Ops are duty bound to provide free of cost to the purchaser. On being asked to waive off the cost of carry bag, the sales staff at store expressed their inability to provide the carry bag free of cost. Further, there was no display board in the store mentioning that the carry bags are chargeable and the customer should bring their own carry bags. Moreover the carry bag contained the name and logo of the OPs which implies that the said carry bad was meant to be given to the customers who make purchase from the store. By not providing  the carry bag for the goods purchased by the complainant from the OPs results in deficiency of services as well as unfair trade practices on the part of the OPs. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs No.1 & 2 through registered post no. CH0541057381N and CH054105698IN on 27.05.2019, which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs No.1 & 2; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Ops No.1 & 2, they were  proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 02.07.2019.

3.             To prove her case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record minutely and carefully.

5.             It is evident that the complainant has purchased one Fisher Toy amounting to Rs.2,306.73 on 10.01.2019. As per cash memo/ invoice(Annexure C-1), it is evident that the complainant made the payment of Rs.15/- towards gift wrapping of the said toy and Rs.10/- for carry bag in addition to the payment of Rs. 2306.73 as price of toy. The learned counsel has alleged that the cashier, at the billing counter, handed over the said toy only after the receipt of Rs.10/- extra for carry bag from the complainant. The learned counsel contended that it was nowhere mentioned in the entire shop premises that the OPs would charge for a carry bag. It is contended that even price of the carry bag was not printed on it. It is vehemently contended that the said carry bag having the name and logo of the OPs  is being used by the Ops to promote their business  by making advertisement through it. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.10/- alongwith interest @ 18% and compensation on account of mental agony and litigation charges. Reliance has been placed upon the order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh(UT) in the FA No. 24/19 titled as M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Chandgothia & anr.

6.             The OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notices shows that they have nothing to say in its defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             The sole grievance of the complainant against OPs is with regard to the charging of Rs.10/- on account of carry bag.  The complainant has no dispute or grievance with regard to the quality and price of the fisher toy amounting to Rs.2306.73. Even the complainant has no grievance with regard to the charging of Rs.15/- towards gift wrapping of the said toy. The grievance of the complainant seems to be genuine and reasonable in view of the fact that no notice asking the consumers to pay Rs.10/- towards the carry bag was affixed in the premises of the OPs. Moreover, the said carry bag for which the complainant had to shell out extra amount from her pocket was a printed carry bag on both sides, having the name and logo of the OPs which undoubtedly act as a promoter of their business by way of making an advertisement for them, whenever the said bag is carried by the consumer in public places. In this manner, the complainant and the other gullible consumers like them have certainly been taken for a ride by the OP for advertising their name.

8.             Further, the OPs have neither responded to the notices nor have they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. The version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by her affidavit Annexure C-A, along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3. 

9.             Thus, we conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OPs while rendering the services to the complainant; hence the complainant is entitled for the relief.

10.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs:-

1. To refund Rs.10/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from filing of the complaint till its realization on account of wrongly charged carry bag from her. 
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/-to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

 

11.            The OPs shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:10.12.2019

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

        Member                           Member                               President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         Satpal,                              

President