DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 113 of 2021.

 

1. Shri Mithu Paul,

S/O. Shri Haridas Paul,

R/O. Subhashnagar, East Pratapgarh,

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

P.S.-East Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala….......................................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

1. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,

MAX RETAIL DIVISION,

  Sakuntala Road, Agartala, 

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

Dist.-West Tripura …............................................................................ 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,

  Advocate. 

 

For the O.P.  : Sri Sampad Choudhury, 

   Advocate. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 17/08/2022

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Shri Mithu Paul, 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 25/09/2021 the Complainant went to MAX RETAIL DIVISION, A unit of LIFE STYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD., Sakuntala Road, Agartala for purchasing some wearing apparel and while entering inside into the Shopping Mall, the staff of O.P. at the entrance gate does not allow the Complainant to enter within their business premises with carry bags which the Complainant brought with him. 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. Then the Complainant was forced to pay Rs.7/- extra as the carry bag charge in Cash Memo/Invoice Vide No.041651040006737, dated 25/09/2021. Thereafter, he made contact with the Store Manager of the mall but from there 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 “Life Style International Private Ltd., Max Retail Division” Shopping Mall, Sakuntala Road, Agartala,. 

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. It is submitted that complaint is not maintainable in its present form and nature.   

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

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 04/10/2021. The documents are namely the Original Cash Memo, Photocopy of Cash Memo and the 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. Alok Kumar Bose, working for Store Manager of Max Retail Division, Agartala a Division of Lifestyle International Private Ltd. and he has submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. In this case O.P. has produced 03 documents comprising 21 sheets under a Firisti dated 30/05/2022.     

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the Complainant and having regard to the evidence adduced by the Complainant, 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 :-

    Learned Advocate of the Complainant submitted their written argument and he also stated 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 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.

                               

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 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. 

      Though in the Exhibit-I nowhere name of the purchaser is shown or mentioned but O.P. admitted this document and also the factum of purchase of carry bag that is why we have considered the invoice(Exhibit-I) and taken it into consideration.        

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

 

 

 

 

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.