Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/349/2021

Rishabh Wadhera - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s McDonald's Restaurant - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

25 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	349/2021
Date of Institution	:	07.06.2021
Date of Decision	:	25.08.2022

 

                     

                         

Rishabh Wadhera aged 23 years # 3219, Sirhind, Fatehabad Sahib-140406.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1. M/s McDonald’s Restaurant, 1^st Floor, Hotel Aroma Complex, Plot No.1, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
2. Connaught Plaza Restaurant Private Ltd., (Company), Controls and Operates McDonald’s, Regd. Office at 25, Bazaar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110001,
3. Aman, Assistant Manager, M/s McDonald’s Restaurant,  1^st Floor, Hotel Aroma Complex, Plot No.1, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

... Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER 

 

Argued by:-

 

Complainant in person.

OPs exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.       The facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant, are that through Zomato he ordered food items worth Rs.79/- from OP No.1 on 27.05.2021. However, he was shocked to see the bill that apart from Rs.79/- a sum of Rs.35/- were charged extra for carry bag.  The carry bag was mentioned and billed as “packaging charges”.  On enquiry, he was informed by OP No.3 that ‘packaging charges’ is a charge for the carry bag in relation to the complainant’s order.  It has further been averred that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service as also indulged into unfair trade practice by charging for the carry bag. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2.     Despite due service through speed post, the OPs did not put in appearance before this Commission and as such they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte on 07.03.2022.
3.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and gone through the documents on record.
4.     The complainant has placed on record the photocopy of the Invoice as Annexure C-1 vide which he purchased the goods worth Rs.79/-. It is also evident from the said invoice that the OPs had additionally charged a sum of Rs.35/- extra on account of packaging charges.  The OPs have committed unfair trade practice by charging Rs.35/- towards packaging charges. It has been held by our Hon’ble State Commission 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 our own Hon’ble State Commission passed 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. Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs is proved.

5.       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against the OPs, and the same is accordingly allowed qua it. The OPs are directed as under:-
   1. to refund Rs.35/- i.e. packaging charges/cost of the carry bag to the complainant.
   2. to pay Rs.500/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.  Compensation imposed on lower side as mental agony of parting with the price of the carry bag could only be caused to this extent.
   3. to pay Rs.1,100/- as litigation expenses.      
6.     This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall be liable to pay the amount at Sr.No.(i) and  (ii) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order, till its realization besides litigation expenses.
7.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 25.08.2022
	Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER