Case No. 22/2020   

      IN THE MATTER OF

      Shamim Ahmad s/o Late Jamil Ahmad, R/O village- Adaun, PS-

      Akrabad, Dist.- Aligarh

                                           V/s

Manager, Vishal Mega Mart, Ist and IInd Floor, Sodhi Complex – 2, Kishanpur Tiraha, Aligarh- UP.

      CORAM

              Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhyaya, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

             PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1.     Compensation Rs.1 lakh for mental agony and the price of carry bag Rs.12/ be paid to the complainant by the OP.
2.  Cost of litigation be awarded to the Complainant.

2. Complainant stated that he had purchased two shirts at  Vishal Mega mart on 22/01/2019. He had paid Rs.510/ for the price of two shirts. OP had given the cash memo, bearing no-3013020017790. Complainant found that the price of carry bag was included in the cash memo.  The price of shirts and carry bag were included in the cash memo, which was received by OP. There was no need to carry bag. Complainant did not request for carry bag, but OP had given shirts in carry bag. OP has obtained the price of the carry bag, which was unjust and illegal. Complainant requested to deduct the price of carry bag, but refused to deduct by OP. Complainant requested to deduct the unwanted price of carry bag from the cash memo, but the OP clearly denied the request of the Complainant. The OP also used objectionable language against the Complainant, when there was a big gathering in the Mart. The public gathered during the hot conversations between the Complainant and OP. Complainant demanded to register the complaint in the complaint register, but clearly denied to provide the complaint register by the OP. By the misbehavior of the OP, the Complainant was shocked and tortured mentally.
3. OP has stated in WS that before providing the carry bag to the complainant, he was made aware of the charges of the carry bag and thereafter carry bag was provided to him at his own sweet will and desire. None of the employees at the store have never complained any customer to purchase carry bag from the store. It has been displayed at the entry gate that the customers can bring their own carry bags to carry the goods purchased from the store. It is optional for the customer to purchase a carry bag and customers are never forced to purchase the carry bag. The carry bag was provided to the complainant upon his request which is neither illegal nor in violation of the consumer protection act. The carry bag was billed  only upon getting affirmation from the complainant.
4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings.  OP has also filed his affidavit and papers  in support of his pleadings
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
7. Complainant has stated that the price of the carry bag was included in the bill against his will and on protest made by him, the cashier denied to refund the price of the carry bag. Complainant supported his pleadings by affidavit. OP has refuted the pleadings made by the complainant but there is no evidence of cashier on the record and the OP has not stated the name of cashier or the person who charged the price of carry bag. Thus it is proved that the price of carry bag by charged at the store of the OP against the will of the complainant. This is clearly unfair trade practice adopted by the OP in selling the carry bag with the purchased goods. Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed.
8.   The question formulated above is decided in favour of the complainant.
9.  Complainant has filed copies of judgments passed by District Forum – I UT-Chandigarh in case no-CC/64/2019, Dinesh Prasad Raturi vs Bata India Ltd, District commission –II, Hyderabad in case no-310/2019, Baglekar Akash Kumar vs More Mega Store Retail Ltd. and District commission, Nainital, case no-74/2019, Nitin Singh vs Mukhya Parivartan Adhikari, Vishal Mega Mart. The present case is similar to the above noted cases.
10.   We hereby direct the Op to pay to the complainant the amount Rs. 25000/ inclusive of the price of the carry bag and cost of litigation. OP is also directed to pay the punitive damages Rs. 1 lakh under section 39(1)(k) of the Act as the such loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable. The said amount of Rs 1 lakh be deposited in consumer welfare fund.
11. Op shall comply with the direction within 45 days failing which OP shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
12.  A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties. 
13.  File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.