Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/89

Inder Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lifestyle Inernational Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ravneet Kaur Adv.

06 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 89 dated 13.03.2020.                                                         Date of decision: 06.06.2023.

 

Inder Gupta aged 45 years son of Shri Om Parkash Gupta, resident of House No.92/93, Bazar No.5, Near Jain Mandir, Ferozepur Cantt.                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office No.77, 7^th & 8^th Floor, Degree Town Centre, Building No.3, West Wing, Hal, Airport Road, Yemlur, Bagalore-560035, through its General Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2.Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., Max Retail Division, Unit No.6, Lower Ground Floor, MBD Neopolis Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Incharge.                                                                                                                                                                                      …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS.MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Ms.Harsharanjeet Kaur, Advocate

For OPs                         :         None

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that on 21.01.2020, the complainant visited the OP2 i.e. Max Retail Division and purchased one Gents Lower Pan and T-shirt for Rs.4407/- through invoice No.015211010069230. However, from the bare perusal of the bill, the OP2 has charged Rs.8/- from the complainant towards the cost of paper carry bag meant for carrying the goods purchased by the complainant from the OPs. This bag was meant for carrying the goods purchased from the OPs in retail. The OPs are duty bound and liable to provide this bag to the complainant free of cost. However, they have charged Rs.8/- from the complainant against this bag, which demand is claimed to be totally illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. When the complainant protested against this illegal demand of the OPs, the officials of the Ops misbehaved with the complainant and insulted him in the presence of the respectable present over there. The complainant forced to pay this amount of Rs.8/- towards cost of bag at the store/outlet of the OPs. Despite serving the legal notice dated 24.01.2020 upon the OPs through counsel, OPs failed to refund the amount of Rs.8/- to the complainant. According to the complainant, forcible charging of carry bags amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant prayed for refund the cost of carry bag i.e. Rs.8/- along with compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for physical as well as mental pain, agony, harassment and torture along with litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/-. Hence the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement in which they have raised objections that the complaint is false and vexatious and an attempt to malign the reputation of the opposite parties. The complaint is not tenable in the eyes of law as the complainant has grossly failed to show any cause of action against the opposite parties. The story mentioned in the complaint is purely concocted and the complaint is filed only in order to extract money from the opposite parties illegally. The complainant was asked prior to giving him delivery of the products bought, regarding purchase of paper bag and when he confirmed then the same was billed along with the items purchased, thus the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands. It is further submitted that the paper bags are purchased by the opposite parties and therefore, the opposite parties charged for the paper bag. However, it pertinent to mention that buying such bag is purely discretion of customer and the casher of the opposite parties obtains the consent of each customer who buys bag. Further, the carry bag is sold by the opposite parties and purchased by customer as any other branded product. Further, it is submitted that opposite parties have paid GST to the Government on the sale of the paper bag. It is submitted that the paper bag is billed only when customer is willing and once he/she consent to purchase the same. Further, it is submitted that there is no compulsion on any of the customers to buy the paper bag from the opposite parties.

                   On merits, the facts regarding handing over the clothes in a carry bag and charging of Rs.8/- are admitted. However, it was specifically asked by the sale cashier to the complainant whether he would prefer to buy the carry bag which will cost them Rs.8/-, or he has his own carry bag to take the purchased items. It is submitted that there is no legal/statutory obligation on the part of the opposite parties to provide any bag (paper or cloth or any other material) to carry purchased item for free to its customers. It is denied that the charging for a carry bag is illegal and without any authority of law. The opposite parties have also denied their indulging in unfair trade practice and there is a deficiency of service on their part. It was further stated that the complainant is not entitled to any refund, damages/compensation or litigation expenses as prayed by him in the complaint. All other allegations have been denied being wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 and Ex.C2 i.e. copies of postal receipts, Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 are the copies of legal notice dated 24.01.2020 served upon the OPs by counsel for the complainant, Ex.C5 is the copy of invoice dated 21.01.2020 qua the purchased items by the complainant from the OPs and closed the evidence.

4.                When the case was fixed for evidence of OPs, they failed to conclude their evidence despite grant of sufficient chances including last chance and even nobody was turned up on behalf of the OPs since 05.08.2022 and therefore, the evidence of the OPs was closed by order vide order dated 21.02.2023.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with annexed documents very carefully.

6.                Admittedly, on 21.01.2020, the complainant purchased articles in question i.e. one gents lower pant and T-shirt from the OP2 for Rs.4407/- vide invoice Ex.C5 and also paid the additional charges of Rs.8/- as cost of paper carry bag. However, Ops have offered an explanation by mentioning that the sale cashier had specifically asked the complainant with regard to purchase of carry bag and only after the confirmation from the complainant, cost of Rs.8/- was paid along with other purchased items and additional cost of carry bag was not levied by force or putting the complainant under some compulsion.

7.                Perusal of invoice Ex.C5 shows that an employee code No.1047912 of the cashier has been mentioned therein. Therefore, the name and identity of the cashier, being employee of OPs, was well within their knowledge and he was best person who could have deposed that he personally gave choice to the complainant for the purchase of the carry bag. Neither the identity of the employee/cashier has been disclosed by the OPs nor any evidence by way of affidavit of the said employee/cashier has been tendered in evidence. So, inevitably the only inference can be drawn is that no informed consent of the complainant was taken before or at the time of billing and charging the additional cost of carry bag.

8.                Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has recognized six rights of the consumer mainly:-

(i)      the right to be protected against the marketing of goods, products or services which are hazardous to life and property;

(ii)     the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard ad price of goods, products or services, as the case may be, so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practice;

(iii)    the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of goods, products or services at competitive prices;

(iv)    the right to be heard and to be assured that consumer’s interests will receive due consideration at appropriate fora;

(v)     the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and

(vi)    the right to consumer awareness.

9.                It is not the case of the opposite parties that the factum of charging of additional cost of carry bag was conspicuously displayed in the premises of store where the items were being displayed and sold to the customers. This is a stark violation to the all important consumer rights as mentioned hereinbefore.

10.              In the recent reported judgment titled as Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) versus Ashok Kumar and others-II(2021)CPJ-22(N.C.) wherein it has been held as under:-

“The consumer has a right to know, before he exercises his choice to patronize a particular retail outlet, and before he makes his selection of goods for purchase, that additional cost will be charged for carry bags, and also the right to know the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. Prominent prior notice and information has necessarily to be there(inter alia at the entrance to the retail outlet also), to enable the consumer to make his choice of whether or not to patronize the concerned outlet, and the consumer is necessarily to be informed of the additional cost for carry bags and of their salient specifications and price before he makes his selection of goods for purchase.

It cannot be that a notice is displayed at the payment counter or that the consumer is informed at the time of making payment that additional cost will be charged for carry bags, after the consumer has already made his selection for purchase and has already made payment or is in the process of making payment for the selected goods. It also cannot be that carry bags of (undisclosed) specifications and of price as fixed by the opposite party Co. are so forced on the consumer. Such notice or information at the time of making payment not only causes embarrassment and harassment to the consumer and burdens him with additional cost but also affects his unfettered right to make an informed choice of patronizing or not patronizing a particular outlet at the initial stage itself and before making his selection of goods for purchase.

In the instant case, arbitrarily and highhandedly deviating from its past practice, deviating from the normal, not giving adequate prominent prior notice or information to the consumer before he makes his choice of patronizing the retail outlet and before he makes his selection for purchase, imposing additional cost of carry bags at the time of making payment, after the selection has been made, forcing carry bags without disclosing their salient specifications at price as fixed by the opposite party co., putting the consumer to embarrassment and harassment, burdening the consumer with additional cost, in such way and manner, is decidedly unfair and deceptive.” 

11.              In the light of the law laid down in the cited case, it is clear that the consumer cannot be taken by surprise that he would be charged additional cost of the carry bag at the billing counter. In the instant case also, the complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs.8/- towards the cost of the carry bag on the occasion when he purchased articles in question from the store of opposite party no.2. It was not brought to the notice of the complainant by way of a prominent notice at the entrance or elsewhere at the premises of store that he would have to pay the additional cost of the carry bag. Therefore, this amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

12.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OPs severally and jointly shall refund the amount of Rs.8/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, Ops shall be liable to pay interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual realization. The opposite parties severally and jointly shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only)  to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

13.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.06.2023.

Gurpreet Sharma