Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

Complainant Anish Pal Singh Gurudutta has filed this case u/s 35 of CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party for charging a sum of Rs. 8.58p towards the cost of the paper bag and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Party to stop charging for the carry-bag, refund a sum of Rs. 8.58p which has been collected for the cost of paper carry bag and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is a businessman and had been to Raipur on 13.06.2022 on a trip. The complainant went to the restaurant of the Opposite Party and ordered some

food amounting to Rs. 1005/-. After payment, he noticed that the amount is collected on the food items, CGST, SGST along with cost of a paper bag which is valued at Rs. 8.58p. as reflected in the tax in voice. He raised objection for inclusion of cost of paper bag having their business logo. But nobody listened to his complaint and insulted him. While coming out of the restaurant, he met his friends who made mockery of him by stating him to be an agent of MCdonald or an advertising agent. Thereby, he was humiliated by such comments and filed this case before the Commission for the reliefs as prayed for.

2.           Notice was issued to the Opposite Party who appeared through Advocate and filed written statement. In his written statement, it is stated that in all the restaurants operated by the Opposite Party, all items to be delivered are properly packed and wrapped in a food grade papers and handed over to the customer in paper bags to enable the customers to properly carry the food items. The paper bags are handed over to each customer as per the food items ordered depending on the items, the required number of paper bags are handed over to each customer free of cost. However, they provide bigger carry-bags which contain handles and a separate charge is made to its customer for those carry bags which they intimate the customer to provide on payment of cost. This has been clearly mentioned in notice board, prominent location inside the restaurant for the information of the customers. As the complainant wanted to take a separate bag with handles, he had to pay the cost and there is no deficiency in service and undue profiteering at the cost of the common man.
3.           In the face of pleading and counter pleadings of the parties, it is to be ascertained that whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for ?

It is admitted by both the parties that a cost has been imposed for the paper bag. It is an admitted fact that the customer has paid for the cost of the paper bag with handles. The Opposite Party has nowhere stated that the paper bag with handles does not carry the “Logo” of the restaurant which itself is an act of advertisement. The Opposite Party is making indirect advertisement at the cost of customer which amounts to unfair trade practice. This part of the pleading of the complainant is not challenged by the Opposite Party in any manner. Therefore, it is deemed to have been admitted by him.

4.           As a case of unfair trade practice is made out against the OP he is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and harassment sustained by him and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is made liable for practicing unfair trade practice and harassment to the complainant. The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs. 8.58p to the complainant which he has collected from him and is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- as compensation to the complainant towards unfair trade practice and harassment and a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of order failing which the order as to cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till its compliance.