Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/78

Gaganpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager More Retail - Opp.Party(s)

Jaspreet Singh,Adv

30 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                 Consumer Complaint No.  78 of 16.07.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    30.10.2019

 

 

Gaganpreet Singh son of Sh.Jasbir Singh, resident of #2924/7A, Malohtra Colony, Street No.1, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

Manager More Retail Limited, Ropar, Bela Chowk, Ground Floor, 3039/2, Bela Chowk, Punjab  

   ....Opposite Party

 

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Gurpreet Singh Saini, Adv. counsel for complainant  

Ms. Prerna Verma, legal representative of O.P. along with Sh. Bhupinder Singh Manager, More Retail Limited 

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1. Gaganpreet Singh son of Sh.Jasbir Singh, resident of #2924/7A, Malohtra Colony, Street No.1, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the entire amount paid to him aong with interest at the market rate along with an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and also the cost of litigation; any other relief as the Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances in favour of the complainant be passed. 

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 18.4.2019, the complainant bought the products from More Retail Limited, which is situated Near Bela Chowk, Rupnagar. When he came to billing counter to pay the bill amount then he demanded carry bag from billing counter staff member to put the purchased items and after receiving the carry bag, the complainant paid Rs.1265/- on billing counter with debit card. When he received the bill invoice from the billing counter then he came to know that the O.P. had charged extra Rs.15/- for carry bag and the same is included in the bill with 6% state and centre GST. Hence, this complaint. 

3.    On being put to notice, the O.P. appeared and filed written reply stated therein that the O.P. have clearly displayed at store at  conspicuous places that in order to discharge plastic, the O.P. provided jute bags to the customer and if the customer wishes to buy they may purchase the same from the O.P. There is no rule or law in force stating that carry bags have to be supplied free to the customers nor is there any bar or restriction imposed on the O.P. from collecting charges for the carry bag, however, the same is only charged after due consent from customer otherwise also the O.P. offers them to get the products packed in boxes or the same be delivered to their home at free of cost. The plastic carry bags have become a menace as thy are not easily Biodegradable and are hazardous to environment and as such the government has framed Plastic Waste Management Rules in 2011 and amended them from time to time and is discourging the use of plastic and we are in line with government policy and Global initiative to restrict the use of plastic and have already been put up prominently display boards in our "more store" and nearby Cash Tills in Green Color with Trees and leaves mentioning "Go Green" and wording in Red Color stating "We encourage customers to bring their own carry bags" and with the following message 1) In the event you do not bring carry bag, it can be purchased in the store. 2) However, PURCHASE OF CARRY BAG IS NOT COMPULSION, but it is AN OPTION to you. 3) In the event, you are compelled to purchase the carry bag, please bring it to the attention of the store manager before you depart from the store. 4) We strive to reduce the usage of plastic carry bags as it is detrimental to the environment. 5) We believe it is our joint responsibility to ensure that environment is protected for the future generations. Hence we make endeavor to reduce the usage of plastic bags and also mentions at the end stating that Let's pledge to save our beautiful planet" Hence, we would like to bring your kind notice that purchasing of carry bag is an optional to your client is already been aware of the above facts including 'Go Green Display Boards' and we are not forcing your client to purchase the carry bag. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with document Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.  The authorized representative of O.P. has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Store Manager, More Retail Limited Ex.OP1 along with document Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence.  

5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, authorized representative of O.P. and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.    Complainant counsel argued that Gaganpreet Singh, bought products from Store of "More" situated at Bela Chowk Ropar, on 18.4.2019. After purchase the products, complainant demanded the carry bag, which was supplied by the O.P. and made the payment of Rs.1265/-. The learned counsel further referred that when the complainant received the receipt and made the payment then it came to his knowledge that the O.P. had charged Rs.15/- as price of the Jute Bag. Learned counsel referred the bill/invoice dated 18.4.2019, legal notice dated 22.4.2019, postal receipt dated 22.4.2019 and then the carry bag placed on the file. After referring to the documentary evidence, the complainant counsel made request to allow the complaint with cost.

7.    Smt. Prerna Verma, legal representative of O.P. argued that in the light of written reply with specific plea that there is no provision to supply the carry bag free of cost. Under the GO GREEN moment, the Government framed Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2011which stands amended from time to time and to discourage the use of the plastic in the directions to the use to adopt the "Go Green" Scheme. O.P. agreed to supply the carry bag against payment. Further O.P. displayed the Go Green Pamphlet that the bag which will supply against the payment. Further he referred Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6, whereby bins containing various purpose bags have been placed for the customer to put their purchase item in the same. So, the learned counsel for the O.P. made prayer that carry bag was supplied only after demand and with specific recital that the price of the bag will be charged. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

8.    Complainant relied upon the receipt dated 18.4.2019 Ex.C2 vide which he purchased certain products from the O.P. and O.P. admitted the sale of the product in their detailed reply. More so, the retail shop of the O.P. is situated at Ropar and complainant is also resident of this District. So the complaint is maintainable and this forum has territorial jurisdiction.

9.    Coming to the real controversy, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.P. or not?. It is admitted in the complaint by the complainant that after purchase of the products from the O.P. he requested the O.P. to supply the carry bag, which is evident from the complaint as well as affidavit Ex.CW1/A. After going through the complaint and affidavit then O.P. counsel referred the undisputed pamphlet Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7. If we go through the pamphlet there are certain important notice which are noted as under:-

  Dear Customer,

                   1.  In the event you do not bring carry bags, it can be purchased in                            our store.

                   2. However, PURCHASE OF CARRY BAG IS NOT COMPULSION,                       but it is AN OPTION TO YOU.

                   3. In the event, you are compelled to purchase carry bag, please bring                            to the attention of Store Manager before you depart from the store.

                   4. We strive to reduce the usage of plastic carry bags as it is                                  detrimental to environment.

                   5. We believe it is our joint responsibility to ensure that the environment is protected for future generations, hence we make endeavor to reduce the usage of plastic bags.

                      Let's pledge to save our beautiful planet.

         10.    Further by going through the Bins Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7 these proves           that O.P. has put free paper bags in the bins to be taken by the customer free of charge near the products counter. After going through the said exhibits then appreciating the receipt dated 18.4.2019 in which O.P. had charged Rs.15/- the price of the cotton cloth bag. Ex.C3 is postal receipt where Ex.C4 is the cotton bag which was supplied to the complainant by the O.P. at the time of purchase of products from the retail shop of More. 

          11.   Complainant counsel made prayer that Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7 has no bearing qua the complaint in hand. He referred to the law laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh, in Appeal No.98 of 2019, titled as Bata India Limited Vs Dinesh Parshad Raturi, decided on 22.7.2019, in the above said law, the District Forum, as well as the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh, held that O.P. is duty bound to provide free carry bag to all the customers who purchase the item from their shop and charging price amounts to unfair trade practice. After detailed discussion, the law is laid down that O.P. charged the price qua the carry bag that was ordered to be returned back with costs.

Coming to the case in hand, the complainant himself demanded carry               bag.

             The O.P. has tendered an another authority/order of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, in First Appeal No.163 of 2019, titled as Radhakrishnan. R Vs. Big Bazar, Mayur Vihar Extension, Unit of Future Retail Limited and its relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

     " It may also add that the gazette notification relied upon by the appellant is simple to the effect that plastic bag would not be used in order to save environment. But it does not mean that the shop keeper has to supply carry bag. The intending purchaser must carry bag from his house. If he prefer not to carry bag and wants the shop keeper supply the same, he must pay extra for it. Consumer Protection Act is meant for saving consumer from          being exploited. It is not meant for wind fall or making purchaser millionaire over night. In this regard reliance can be placed on decision of Hon'ble National Commission, in FA No.847 of 2017, titled as Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta Vs Vodafone East Limited".      

12.   Appreciating the laws laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in First Appeal No.847 of 2017, titled as Dr. Uttamkumar Samanta Vs Vodafone East Limited and 4 Others & Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, it is held that complaint is not able to prove deficiency in service and the same stands dismissed. 

13.   After appraising the present case, the forum has found that for meager amount of Rs.15/- i.e. charges of carry bag, which the complainant had himself demanded inspite of the fact that free paper bags were available in the nearby bins and then demanding compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation charges, which on the face of it is proportionately high and on the face of it is unreasonable and albeit absurd. It is clearly evident that the complainant is attempting to misuse the statutory processes provided for better protection of the interest of consumers to attempt wrong gains and to create 'nuisance value' qua the O.P. The complaint is frivolous as well as vexatious. It is also to be seen that the time and resources of this forum have been wasted in such manner and for such evident purpose. This forum has also noted that the complainant is well educated person who prepared this complaint in a misplaced and in irrational approach towards consumer justice through machinery of Consumer Fora.

14.   So on the basis of authorities of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in FA No.847 of 2017, titled as Dr. Uttam Samanta Vs Vodafone East Limited, decided on 5.10.2018 referred no benefit can be extended to the complainant. Hence, the complaint stands dismissed. Leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

15.   The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of     costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.         

          ANNOUNCED                                                       (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

           Dated.30.10.2019                                      PRESIDENT
 

 

                                              (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                             MEMBER