DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC-60 of 2022.

 

1. Shri Arijit Das,

S/O. Shri Haripada Das,

R/O. Subhashnagar, East Pratapgarh,

P.O.-East Pratapgarh, P.S. -East Agartala, Pin-799004,

Dist.-West Tripura...........…...........................................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

 

1. Lifestyle International Private Ltd.,

Max Retail Division, Sakuntala Road, Agartala,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.-West Tripura 

To be represented by Store Manager…............................................ Opposite Party.

 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Pritam Deb,

  Advocate. 

 

 

For the O.P.  : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

  Advocate. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  06/09/2022.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Shri Arijit Das, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  complaining against the O.P. for deficiency of service. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased on 06/02/2022 some wearing apparel from “Lifestyle International Private Ltd. Max Retail Division” Shopping mall, Sakuntala Road, Agartala. But at the entrance gate does not allow the Complainant to enter with carry bags within their premises. Thereafter he went to the bill counter for payment of the goods, the staff of the bill counter took carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of those purchased articles without asking him in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state,so that its physical possession could be handed over to him. But surprisingly the staff of the cash counter told him to pay extra Rs.7/- for carry bag. Thereafter, he made contact with the Store Manager of the mall but from where also he did not get any proper response of extra charge for carry bag and he also enquired on what basis they charged for Rs.7/- for low quality carry bag and also asked them to provide him any circular regarding that issue but they did not pay any attention of his queries. He again went to the bill counter for rectification of bill and requested the staff of the cash counter to remove the extra charge of carry bag but surprisingly the staff of the cash counter loudly told him in front of the other customers of the mall that rectification of bill is not possible. As a result he had to suffer mental pressure, agony and faced harassment infront of the other customers which was unbearable to him. Hence, there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of O.P. namely “Lifestyle International Private Ltd. Max Retail Division” Shopping mall, Sakuntala Road, Agartala.

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the conduct of the O.P.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming Rs.80,000/-(Rs.50,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.10,000/-)  as deficiency of service and as compensation for causing harassment, negligence and  litigation cost  from the O.P.  

Hence this case. 

2. On the other hand O.P. contested the case by filling written statement.  

         In the written statement the O.P. submitted para-wise reply to the complaint in seriatim. Mostly, O.P. denied and disputed the averments made in the complaint.           

        In the written statement it is also stated that none of the customers are forced to buy any carry bag. It is a routine procedure to restrict every kind of bag outside the mall for various security measures and there is no compulsion upon customers regarding purchase of carry bag. The purchase of carry bag is an option given to the customer and customers reserve their sole discretion to exercise the same. As a responsible business entity, the Company has made sincere efforts to reduce the use of carry bag since the same is detrimental to the environment. In case the customer wants to purchase the carry bag, the price of the same is first informed to the customer and only after his/her acceptance to buy the same, the same is billed to the customer. The charge of carry bags is therefore to be borne by the customers who are willing to purchase the same and the said legal transaction can not be termed as unfair trade practice under section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is submitted that complaint is not maintainable in its present form and nature.   

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

3. Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant has produced 02 documents under a Firisti dated 04/03/2022. The documents are namely the Original Cash Memo  & Original paper carry bag. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series and M.O.-1.   

      On behalf of the O.P. one witness namely Sri Sayan Bose, S/O. Sri Alok Kumar Bose, working as Store Manager, Max Retail Division of Lifestyle International Private Ltd.,  Agartala  and he has submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit.     

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the pleadings of both parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the following points are to be determined:

    (i). Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant?

    (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?    

ARGUMENT OF BOTH SIDES :-

         At the time of argument Learned Advocate of the Complainant submitted that charging of Rs.7/- for a carry bag is most illegal under Sub-section 5 of Section 36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Then, Complainant was forced to pay Rs.7/- extra for a carry bag and it was mentioned in the cash memo or in the invoice. Learned Advocate of the Complainant further submits that the activities and behaviour of the staff of the O.P. was unbearable to the Complainant. He further submitted that the charging of Rs.7/- for a carry bag amounts to deficiency in service as well as it is an unfair trade practice and Complainant is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service of the O.P. Learned Advocate of the Complainant relied upon a decision of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble State Commission in First Appeal No.A/32/2021 dated 17/05/2022 (Vishal Mega Mart Vs. Sri Mridul Kanti Arya).    

        On the other hand Learned Counsel of the O.P. submitted a written argument. Learned Counsel of the O.P. stated that customers will have to bring their carry bag for shopping purpose and there is no law shown under which O.P. is required to give a shopping bag free of cost to its customers. Learned Counsel of the O.P. submitted to dismiss the complaint as devoid of merit.

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 

      Both issues are taken up together for the convenience. 

      We have gone through the complaint, written reply and also evidence adduced from both sides.

        Complainant in his examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that he was not allowed with a carry bag to enter into the shopping mall of the O.P. and he was forced to make an extra payment of Rs.7/- for carry bag, though he had no intention to purchase the carry bag. He has submitted a invoice and the carry bag which is marked as Exhibit-1 & M.O.-1. He deposed that for the act of the staff of the shopping mall he had suffered mental pressure, agony and faced harassment in front of the other customers which are unbearable.              

7.         From the evidence and exhibited invoice it is found that O.P. has charged Rs.7/- for a carry bag. As per provision of Sub-section-5 of Section-36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 there is an obligation on the part of the seller that the seller will hand over the possession of the purchased goods to its customers into a deliverable State. So, under the provision of Section-36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 a seller can not charge for a carry bag which is used for the purpose of handing over the purchased goods in deliverable State, if the bag itself is not purchased as a goods or item. 

8.      In the instant case we find that the bag was sold as an item in contravention of sale of Goods Act, 1930. So, we are in the opinion that Complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. We give a direction to the O.P. to refund the amount of Rs.7/- which was charged for carry bag and also Rs.500/- as a compensation and Rs.500/- as a cost of litigation i.e. in total of Rs.1,007/-(Rs.500/- + Rs.500/- + Rs.7/-). 

    The O.P. is directed to make the payment within 1 month from the date of judgment, if the payment is not made within 1 month then it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made in full.                  

     Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost. 

        Announced.

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.