Date of filing: 22/11/2019
Date of Judgment: 09/03/2023
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This complaint is filed by Sri Surajit Khara under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties (referred as OPs hereinafter) namely (1) MORE Supermarket and (2) The manager, MORE Supermarket at Behala, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Case of the complainant in short is that OP No. 1 is a shopping cum departmental store namely MORE and OP 2 is its manager and selling different kinds of departmental and daily needed articles. On 18.11.2019 complainant purchased some articles and after purchasing, OP issued a bill amounting to Rs. 561/- including cost of Rs. 04/- for one “Gold Carry Bag Small”. Complainant refused to take the said carry bag where LOGO of that company was printed in block as “MORE” and requested the manager and concerned dealing staff to deduct the cost of said carry bag but he was pressurized to pay the amount. Finding no alternative complainant paid the total bill amount including of carry bag. Request of the complainant to exchange the carry bag with another bag which did not have any logo was also refused. O.P. by pressuring the complainant to purchase the said carry bag has been deficient in rendering of service and thus present complaint is filed by the complainant praying for directing the OPs to refund the amount paid for carry bag, to pay Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation cost.
OPs are contesting the case by filing the written version denying and disputing the allegation made against them contending inter-alia that as complainant could not provide any container to put the purchased articles attending employee told him that the said articles may be sent to his home by the delivery man of OP without any cost. There is no provision to supply the carry bag free of cost and as the Govt. is against use of plastic materials, OPs have displayed go green pamplet that the carry bag to be supplied against payment and that cannot be supplied free of cost. It is further contended that the complainant pressurized to return the charge of the carry bag after compelling the OP to give the said carry bag. Thus OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case.
During evidence, complainant filed examination in chief on affidavit but no questionnaire has been filed by the OPs. It was submitted on behalf of OPs that they shall not be filing any questionnaire. Similarly after OPs filed their examination in chief on affidavit, complainant did not file any questionnaire. Thus argument has been heard. Both sides have filed brief notes of argument.
So the following points require determination:-
- Whether there has been any deficiency in rendering of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs?
- Whether complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
Both the points are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition. It is an admitted fact that on 18.11.2019 complainant purchased some articles and OP issued bill of Rs. 561/- charging Rs. 04/- for carry bag and the said carry bag had OP’s LOGO ‘MORE’. According to complainant he asked to replace the carry bag with a carry bag without such logo of OP but he was pressurized for taking the said carry bag with logo and thus he was compelled to carry the articles in the carry bag having logo ‘MORE’ of OP.
The contention of the OPs is that since the complainant didn’t provide any bag or container, they told him that articles will be sent to his home by the delivery man without any cost but complainant did not pay any heed. In this context OPs have not filed any document that they have such practice of delivering without charging any cost if any customer does not carry bag. It may be pertinent to point out that it would be absurd to accept such contention of the OPs as the cost towards delivery of articles by delivery man of the OP would have been more than Rs. 04/- charged for said carry bag. So unless some document in this regard is filed, such contention of the OP cannot be accepted.
It is further contended by the OPs that due to govt. order and rules against the use of plastic materials, OPs displayed go green pamplet that the carry bag to be supplied on payment. But no such pamplet has been filed in this case. However accepting the contention of OP that plastic material or polythene bag could not be used but what prevented the OPs to supply the articles in paper carry bag, has not been explained. A paper carry bag is not prohibited or against the rule of the Govt. A customer buying those articles from the OP is expected to be provided with a carry bag to carry those articles. In the name of go green or Govt. order about not using plastic materials, OP cannot compel the complainant to take a carry bag with its logo on payment of cost of such carry bag. A situation in fact is created by the OP that the customer buying the articles in the OP / shop has to publicize its brand by carrying the said carry bag with its Logo but at the same time has to pay for publicizing such brand of OP. If the carry bag was supplied free of cost than OP could have emphasized about option that it was for the complainant to take it or not.
It is already highlighted above that OPs have not filed any document to show that they had displayed anywhere inside shop that they would be charging for the carry bag. It is also strengthened from the fact that complainant came to know that carry bag was chargeable when the bill was raised. So charging for carry bag or selling it with its logo, without any doubt, amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OP. The decision of Hon’ble SCDRC Chandigarh in case of Bata India Ltd – Vs – Dinesh Prasad Raturi, is squarely applicable in the given facts situation of this case. In the said case Hon’ble State Commission while affirming the judgment passed by the DCDRC held that “the Forum rightly directed the appellant / opposite party to provide free carry bags to all customers forthwith who purchase articles from its shop and stop unfair trade practice i.e. to charge for carry bag.”
OP has relied upon the decision of DCDRF, ROPAR in case of Gagan Preet Singh – Vs – Manager MORE Retail Ltd. But since the decision referred to above in case of Bata India Ltd. (Supra) is of a higher court / Forum, decision cited by OP in case of Gagan Preet Singh is not discussed.
Another decision relied upon by the OP of Hon’ble NCDRC in case of Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta – Vs – Vodafone East Ltd., has no application in the given facts & situation of this case. In the said case complainant therein had obtained internet service from the OP 1 & 2 therein and had paid sum of Rs. 5,500/- Allegation was that immediately after installation, said internet service was disconnected. Further complainant though had paid Rs. 5,500/- but was seeking disproportionate claim of Rs. 99,95,500/- so as to bring complaint within the jurisdiction of Hon’ble State Commission. Complainant in that case had also suppressed the fact that a similar complaint was filed which was dismissed with observation that it was hit by the pecuniary jurisdiction. So the Hon’ble Commission observed that the act of the complainant was obviously malafide. The case in hand is filed on totally different facts.
In view of the discussions as highlighted above, complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 04/- and further entitled to compensation for harassment and litigation cost. Sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost will be justified.
Hence
ORDERED
CC/619/2019 is allowed on contest. Opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 04/- and pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation cost within 45 days from this date failing which entire amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. till its realization.
