Tripura

StateCommission

A/1/2022

Vishal Mega Mart - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manojit Saha - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. S. Rahaman, Mr. H. Bhattacharjee, D. Das. Kilikdar, Mr. M. Das, Mr. R. Ali

19 May 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

TRIPURA: AGARTALA

 

CASE NO.A.1 OF 2022

 

Vishal Mega Mart,

Hari Ganga Basak Road,

Opposite SBI Main Branch,

Melarmath, Agartala,

District-West Tripura, Pin-799 001

Through its Manager/authorized signatory.

………………Appellant

 

VERSUS

 

Shri Manojit Saha,

S/O Sri Tapan Saha,

R/O House No.02/243,

p.o. Amarpur, District-Gomati Tripura,

present Address-Sri Monojit Saha,

C/O Kajal Pal, Jamirghat,

District-West Tripura, Pin-799 210.

. ………………. Respondent

 

For Appellant(s)                   :       Mr. S. Rahman, Advocate

 

For Respondent(s)               :       Mr. M. Saha, Advocate  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

PRESIDENT, STATE COMMISSION

MR. KAMALENDU BIKASH DAS

MEMBER, STATE COMMISSION

 

 

 

order

19.05.2022

 

                   Heard Mr. S. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Vishal Mega Mart. Also heard Mr. Monojit Saha, the respondent-in-person, who is the original complainant of the complaint.

2.             Briefly stated, the complainant-Sri Manojit Saha had purchased some articles from the shop premises of the appellant. When he went to the bill counter, the appellant-Vishal Mega Mart without saying anything to him had sold their carry bag and charged Rs.12.50 against cost of such carry bag. The grievance of the complainant is that on what basis the appellant-Vishal Mega Mart had charged the cost of carry bag though there was no mention of the price in the carry bag itself. So, according to the complainant, the appellant was found to be deficient in providing appropriate service to the complainant as a consumer.

3.             Mr. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there was proper display quoting the rates of the carry bags, but, the appellant has failed to substantiate whether there is any mention of the price of the carry bag itself.

4.             We find fault in the service of the appellant that was supposed to be rendered by the appellant. However, considering the nature of deficiency in service, as indicated in the complaint petition, and considering the submissions of learned counsel, Mr. Rahman appearing for the appellant, this Commission is inclined to reduce the rate of compensation as has been rewarded by the learned District Commission.

5.             Accordingly, the judgment dated 21.06.2021, passed by the learned District Commission in Case No.CC 04 of 2020, is modified and the compensation amount is reduced to Rs.3,000/-(rupees three thousand) from Rs.10,012.50. The appellant is to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from today, otherwise, the amount shall carry interest @12% per annum.   

6.             The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed in the above terms.