Orissa

Cuttak

CC/24/2021

Padmalochan Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Diresctor,Bazar Kolkata - Opp.Party(s)

Self

19 Oct 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                 C.C.No.24/2021

 

Padmalochan Rout,

S/O:Sribachha Rout,At:Haripur Muliasahi,

PS:Purighat,PO:Buxibazar,

Cuttack-753001.                                                                                  ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Branch Manager,

Bazar Kolkata,Kedar Bhawan,

PO:Buxibazar,P.S:BAdambadi,Cuttack-753001.

 

2.        The Managing Director,

Bazar Kolkata,Head Office,11^th Floor,P.S:Srijan Corporate Park,

Near RDB Cinema,GP block,Sector-V,

Bidhannagar,Kolkata,West Bengal-70009.                                  ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    08.02.2021

Date of Order:   19.10.2022

 

For the complainant:                      Self.

For the O.Ps              :             Mr. S.Kar,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                      

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in nutshell is that he had purchased a T shirt on 28.12.20 for a price of Rs.249/- from the O.Ps and while purchasing the same, at the cash counter he was questioned about the requirement of the carry bag and when he said affirmatively, the carry bag was provided to him but a price of Rs.6/- was charged for the said carry bag without intimating the complainant about the same.  There was no notification at any of the places in the said shop of O.P specifying about the price of the carry bag.  When the complainant noticed about the same he could not get any appropriate answer for which he had to issue a legal notice to the O.Ps on 29.12.20.  The complainant had attended the counselling centre on 20.1.21 but the O.Ps had not turned up to the counselling centre that day nor had they sent any representative on behalf of them to attend the counselling centre.  Thus, the complainant has filed this case claiming a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation and another sum of Rs.20,000/- for his mental harassment.  The complainant has further claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

            The complainant alongwith his complaint petition has filed Xerox copies of the documents in order to prove his case.

2.         The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly wherein they have urged that the case of the complainant is not maintainable, it is barred by law of limitation, bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and as such they have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition.  They have admitted about the complainant purchasing a T shirt for a consideration of Rs.249/- from their shop but according to them, when the complainant was questioned and had agreed about the requirement of a carry bag at the billing counter, the same was provided to him with due charge.  They have also stated that they were not using polythene bags and the carry bag provided by them was as per the norms of the Govt.  Thus, they have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with cost.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contentions of the written version, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Issue no.i.

              Admittedly, the complainant had been to the shop of the O.Ps and had purchased one T-shirt worth of Rs.249/- on 28.12.20.  According to the complainant, at the billing counter of the O.Ps, he was questioned about the necessity of the carry bag and when he agreed to have the requirement of the same, the same was provided but after paying the amount through his Card electronically, he found out from the bill that a sum of Rs.6/- has been charged towards the cost of the carry bag.  It is the contention of the complainant that he was not made clear that he would be charged a sum of Rs.6/- towards the price of the carry bag if he requires the same.  Thus, it is the contention of the complainant that the trade practice as adopted by the O.Ps was unfair for which they were deficient in their service.  He has also mentioned in his complaint petition that nowhere conspicuously it was mentioned at the shop of the O.Ps that the carry bag would be costing a price of Rs.6/- if taken.  Thus, when he had to pay a sum of Rs.6/-, he had filed this case before this Commission. The O.Ps have urged that the suit is barred by law of limitation which is never a fact.  The  O.Ps have also urged that the case is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties but the same when looked into is only a bald statement. Accordingly, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable.  This issue is answered accordingly.

Issue no.ii.

            There is no dispute that a price of Rs.6/- was charged by the O.Ps towards a carry bag provided to the complainant on 28.12.20 when he purchased from them a T-shirt worth of Rs.249/-.  While going through the averments of the written version of the O.Ps, it is noticed that they have not urged that if they have mentioned conspicuously about the charge of the carry bag when preferred by the intending purchasers.  Moreso, on perusal of the photo copies of the carry bag as filed by the complainant together with his complaint petition, vide Annexure-3, it is noticed that nowhere the price of the carry bag is mentioned to be of Rs.6/- therein.  Thus, this Commission comes to a definite conclusion that the O.Ps by not mentioning the price of the carry bag to be of Rs.6/- conspicuously at any place within their shop and also upon the carry bags as sold by them and by not intimating about the price to the complainant before selling it to him, they were adopting unfair trade practice and thus they are deficient in their service as alleged by the complainant.  This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Issue no.iii.

            From the above discussions, it is noticed that the complainant is definitely entitled to the reliefs as claimed reasonably.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against both the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment and also another sum of Rs.15,000/- towards his litigation expenses.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 19^th day of   October,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member