Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/46/2020

Shivani Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

MNR Lifestyle - Opp.Party(s)

Sumati Jund

05 Jul 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/46/2020
Date of Institution	:	24/01/2020
Date of Decision	:	05/07/2021

 

 

Shivani Gupta w/o Sh. Ashish Gupta, aged around 32 years r/o H.No.852, Excel Housing Society, Sector 48A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Lifestyle International (P) Ltd., 77° Town Centre, Building No.3, West Wing, Off HAL Airport Road, Yamlur P.O., Bangalore – 560037, India through its Managing Director.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Sumati Jund, Counsel for complainant
	:	OP ex-parte.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The allegations in brief are, on 7.4.2019, the complainant went to the store of the OP for shopping and vide invoice (Annexure C-1) spent an amount of ₹380/- on daily household items.  The OP offered a bag to the complainant for carrying the items purchased which was accepted by her. However, after checking invoice, the complainant came to know that ₹5/- had been charged from her by the OP for supplying the carry bag. Maintained, the complainant was not informed by the representative of the OP at the billing counter that the shopping bag came at additional cost.  Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint. 
2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP, therefore, vide order dated 31.5.2021, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
3.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
5.     The factum of providing carry bag under the heading “consumable” to the complainant, on payment of additional price, is proved from the invoice dated 7.4.2019 (Annexure C-1). As per the complainant, she was not told by the person at the billing counter that she would have to pay extra for the carry bag.  Needless to mention here that the complainant did not intend to purchase the same.
6.     Significantly, the OP did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and chose to be proceeded against ex-parte. This act of the OP draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
7.     At any rate, charges of such things (carry bags) cannot be separately foisted upon the consumers and would amount to overcharging. In this manner, definitely and surely, the complainant and other gullible consumers like her have certainly been taken for a ride by the OP. The OP must have several stores across the country and in the above manner, made a lot of money. Thus, the act of OP by forcing the gullible consumers like the complainant to pay additionally for the carry bags amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice.
8.     The sequence of the events of the present case, clearly establishes the high handedness of the OP of which the complainant became a victim and bore the brunt. As a result, the complainant was left with no alternative, except to knock the doors of this Commission, which further aggravated her pain and harassment.
9.     In identical set of circumstances, it has been held by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller.  Here our view is bolstered from the judgment dated 18.05.2020 of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in F.A. No.238/2019–Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar, wherein it was decided as under:-

“It may be stated here that, once we have already held that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller, as such, the contention raised does not merit acceptance. Ever otherwise, as per the contention raised by Counsel for the appellant, on the one hand, purchase of carry bags is made optional & voluntary but at the same time, the consumer/customer is not allowed to enter the shop with their own carry bags containing some goods purchased from other shop premises. We cannot expect that for every single item/article intended to be purchased by a customer, he/she needs to carry separate carry bags. For e.g. if a customer wants to purchase, say about 15 in number, daily-use goods/articles like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad, soap, toothpaste, shaving cream, pen, pencil etc., from different shops, we cannot expect him/her to take 15 carry bags from home, for the same. Thus, by not allowing the customers to carry their own carry bags by the appellant in its premises, there was no option left with them to buy the carry bags alongwith the goods purchased, to carry the same from the shop-premises. We are shocked to note the kind of services provided by these big Malls/Showrooms. One cannot be expected to take the goods like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., purchased, in hands. By not allowing the customers to bring in the shop premises, their own carry bags, and thrusting its own carry bags against consideration, the appellant is deficient in providing service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. No case is made out to reverse the findings of the respective District Forum in each appeal.”

 

The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

10.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed, and the same is partly allowed. The OP is directed:-

(i) To refund to the Complainant the amount of Rs.5/- wrongly charged for the carry bag;

(ii) To pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.

(iii) To pay Rs.500/- as litigation expenses.

11.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/07/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member