STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | | 105 of 2019 |
Date of Institution | | 29.05.2019 |
Date of Decision | | 31.05.2019 |
Mr.Pankaj Chandgothia S/o Late Sh.R.S.Chandgothia, SCO No.14-15, Sector-28-C, Chandigarh.
…Appellant
V e r s u s
M/s Shoppers Stop Ltd., Elante Mall, Plot no.178-178A, Industrial & Business Park, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, through the Store Manager
...Respondent
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 23.05.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in C.C No.426/2018
Argued by Mr.Pankaj Chandgothia, advocate, appellant in person.
Appeal No. | | 106 of 2019 |
Date of Institution | | 29.05.2019 |
Date of Decision | | 31.05.2019 |
Sangeeta Chandgothia w/o Pankaj Chandgothia, C/o SCO No.14-15, Sector-28-C, Chandigarh.
…Appellant
V e r s u s
M/s Shoppers Stop Ltd., Elante Mall, Plot no.178-178A, Industrial & Business Park, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, through the Store Manager
...Respondent
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 23.05.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in C.C No.437/2018
Argued by Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, advocate for the appellant.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This order will dispose of aforementioned two appeals bearing No.105 of 2019 titled as Pankaj Chandgothia Vs M/s Shoppers Stop Ltd. and Appeal bearing No.106 of 2019 titled as Sangeeta Chandgothia Vs shoppers Stop Ltd. filed by the complainants involving similar questions of facts and law.
To dictate order, facts have been taken from appeal bearing No.105 of 2019 titled as Pankaj Chandgothia Vs Shoppers Stop Ltd.
2. Appellants in both appeals are husband and wife respectively. Sh.Pankaj Chandgothia, appellant in appeal No.105 of 2019, is an advocate, who is appearing before the Consumer Foras approximately on each and every day. It is also to our notice that one more appeal qua the issue involved in these appeals is also pending for consideration before this Commission filed by abovenamed appellant.
3. Before the Forum, the complainant filed a complaint by alleging that on 25.12.2017 he purchased one wallet worth Rs.2169.50p from the respondent/OP. He asked the OP to put it into a carry bag. It was refused by a personnel of OP stating that carry bag is provided only against price of Rs.5/-. The complainant has no option but to pay an amount of Rs.5/- in cash. It was alleged that Rs.5/- has wrongly been charged. He further stated that to provide a carry bag is an essential part of selling products. It is further stated that maximum retail price of a product is fixed taking into account all overhead chares. The said act of the OP put him to mental harassment which compelled him to file a consumer complaint before the Forum. 4. Upon notice, reply was filed by the OP. An attempt was made to justify charging of Rs.5/- by stating that purchase of a carry bag was opted by the complainant.
5. Both the parties filed their affidavits. Thereafter, the complaint was heard on merits.
On 23.5.2019, statement of one Santokh Singh, Unit Administration Head of OP was recorded wherein he stated that the OP has now stopped charging for the price of paper carry bag after going through reports in the newspaper that it was not justified.
6. It is necessary to mention here that probably the appellant and his associate advocates were the first to take up this issue of charging price against carry bags by service providers by filing complaints before the consumer Foras. In the cases titled Pankaj Chandgothia Vs Lifestyle and Sapna Vasudeva Vs Lifestyle, to send a message, it appears, that a consolidated amount of Rs.3,000/- in each case was granted towards litigation expenses and compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. Judgements in these cases were finally upheld. If somebody has taken it up in right perspective and stopped charging price of carry bag, a lenient view is required to be taken.
7. It is grievance of the appellant that no compensation has been granted towards physical and mental harassment. The Forum has ordered the OP to refund the amount charged and deposit an amount of Rs.100/- in the Consumer Legal aid account of this Commission. We are of the opinion that the Consumer Foras are meant for protecting the rights of consumers. In a complaint filed by the complainant and his associates, at an early point of time, a right message was sent to the service providers not to charge for the carry bag. The appellant is an advocate. His efforts were appreciated by the Forum and the commission also.
8. At the time of arguments what we have gathered is that the complainant is not interested in enrichment by filing such like litigation. He only wants to send a message to the service providers not to charge extra amount for carry bags from the consumers. The said message has already gone as has been stated by a functionary of the OP on oath in the court that the OP has stopped charging for the price of carry bags. Ideas flow to reform. If somebody learnt a lesson then a lenient view is taken qua that person. Accordingly both appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned orders of the District Forum, in both appeals, are upheld.
9. Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of Appeal bearing No.106 of 2019.
10. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
11. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
