DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:  CC- 262 of 2022

 

 

Smt. Sudip Deb,

S/O- Sri Sukhamoy Ch. Deb,

A.D. Nagar, Surja Para Road No.1,

P.O. A.D. Nagar, P.S. A.D. Nagar,

District- West Tripura-799003. …..................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

Life Style International Pvt. Ltd.,

Max Retail Division, 

Sakuntala Road, Agartala

P.S.-West Agartala, 

Dist.- West Tripura-799001,

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

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

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,

  Learned Advocate.

  

For the O.P.  : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

  Smt. Rinku Shil, 

  Learned Advocates. 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 23.09.2022

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant 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 on 04.03.2022 the Complainant went to Max Retail Division for purchasing some wearing apparel. While entering inside into the shopping mall, staffs of O.P. at the gate did not allow the complainant to enter within their business premises with carry bag which the complainant brought with him. However, the complainant entered into the mall after leaving his bag. After purchasing those items when proceeded to the cash counter for payment, the staffs of the cash counter took out carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of those articles without asking the complainant in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to the complainant. Then the staff of the cash counter told him to pay Rs.7/- extra as the charge of carry bag vide cash memo/invoice dated 04.03.2022. Though he had no intention to purchase the carry bag he was forced to pay the price of the carry bag. The complainant contacted with the store manager, from there also did not get any proper response of the extra charge for the carry bag. As the wearing apparel were necessary for him  and cannot be able to take the goods like wearing apparel and some other items in hands and it would have been very odd and inconvenient for him to carry articles in hand without a carry bag he was forced to pay Rs.7/- for the same. The complainant stated that for the act of the O.P. shopping mall he has suffered mental pressure, agony and faced harassment in front of the other customer which was unbearable to him and beyond exception from such a reputed shopping mall. It is also stated by the complainant that the O.P. are selling cheap quality of carry bag in high rate violating the rules and regulations. The act of the O.P. for charging extra for the carry bag amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. Hence, complainant filed this case claiming compensation of Rs.80,007/- for causing harassment, mental agony etc. along with litigation cost. 

2. After getting notice form this Commission the O.P. appeared and filed written reply denying the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition. It is stated by the O.P. that the present complaint is misconceived, unsustainable in law and liable to be dismissed. It is also stated by the O.P. that the complaint is false, frivolous and an imaginary piece of thinking. In their written statement they have stated that after the ban of use of plastic bags by the Government, the O.P. purchased paper bags, which are much costlier then the normal plastic bags and started providing the same to its customers on payment basis if the customer desires to purchase. There is no legal obligation on the O.P. to provide any bag to carry purchased item for free to its customers. The paper bag sold by the O.P. is like any other commodity without any logo of the O.P.  and it is only optional for a customer to purchase. It is further submitted by the O.P. that  O.P. only charging for the carry bag in order to discourage the use of disposable bags and lessen the strain on the environment. There is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

  Complainant submitted his examination in chief on affidavit as P.W.1 And also submitted 2 documents namely the cash memo/invoice and the carry bag vide firisthi dated 25.04.2022. On identification the photocopy of the invoice is marked Exhbit-1 and the carry bag is marked as M.O.1. 

  O.P. on the other hand submitted examination in chief on affidavit of one Sayan Bose, Store Manager as O.P.W.1. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the Complaint and written reply 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?     

5. ARGUMENT :-

At the time of argument Learned Advocate of the Complainant submitted that charging for a carry bag is most illegal under Sub-section 5 of Section 36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Complainant was forced to pay Rs.7/- extra for a carry bag and it was mentioned in the cash memo or in the invoice. He further submits that the activities and behaviour of the staff of the O.P. was unbearable to the Complainant. He further submitted that act of the O.P. 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. 

On the other hand, Learned Advocate Mr. S. Choudhury submitted that they did not admit the allegation of forceful selling of the carry bag and after taking consent of the customer it was sold. It is further stated that the carry bag bears printed MRP which was sold to complainant.

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  Both issues are taken up together for the convenience. We have gone through the complaint and also evidence adduced from the 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 the 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. 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(one)  month from the date of judgment, if the payment is not made within 1(one) month then it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made in full. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of cost.

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.