Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/548/2022

Mitashi Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s SNNR (P) Ltd., (Super 99) - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Deep Goel, Adv

08 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	548/2022
Date of Institution	:	08.07.2022
Date of Decision	:	08.06.2023

 

                                       

                                               

Mitashi Mittal aged 33 years w/o Gaurav Deep Goel r/o 1119, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh -160018 Present Address:- 225, First Floor, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh -160030.

                                ...  Complainant

Versus

 

M/s SNNR Pvt. Ltd., (Super 99), Second Floor, Shop No.240, Elate Mall, Phase-1, Chandigarh -160002.

…. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   

SMT.SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

Argued by

                   Sh.Gaurav Deep Goel,Adv. for complainant

                   Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the OP.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         The facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant purchased two items from the store of the OP against invoice dated 17.02.2022 for Rs.149/- (Annexure C-1).  On reaching home, the complainant was shocked to see the invoice that the OP charged Rs.10/- towards the carry bag to which she never agreed to. It has further been averred that the OP has committed deficiency in service as also indulged into unfair trade practice by charging for the carry bag. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2.         In its written statement, the OP while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the amount towards the carry bag was charged with the consent of the complainant without compelling the complainant to purchase the items and the complainant can bring her own carry bag to carry the purcahsed items. It has further been stated that there is no law which directs or bind the OP to provide carry bags free of costs. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         The factum of charging additional price for providing carry bags to its customers has not been disputed by the OP.   The argument put forward by the OP is that the consumers are at liberty to bring their own bags to carry the purchased items and that a separate charge would be payable in case the consumer wished to obtain a new carry bag.  However, we are not impressed with this argument of the OP because the big stores like the OP never allowed the customers to carry bags in their hands within their store premises knowing very well that if they are allowed then the customers will not easily give their consent for the purchase of the carry bags.  The OP is, thus, taking advantage of its dominating position.
5.         At any rate, the OP has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence in the shape of any rules/ instructions authorizing it to levy charge additionally for the carry bag from the gullible Consumers. In this backdrop, charges of such things (carry bags) cannot be separately foisted upon the consumers and the same would amount to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. In our considered view, the price of the carry bag has generally been included by the OP in the profit margins of the product(s). It was for gain of the OP. By employing unfair trade practice, the OP is minting lot of money from the gullible customers from all their stores situated across the country.
6.         Moreover, 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, win 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, in the case, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP is proved.

7.       In view of the above discussions, the consumer complaint deserves to succeed against the OP, and the same is accordingly allowed qua it. The OP is directed:-
   1. to refund Rs.10/- i.e. cost of carry bag to the complainant.
   2. to pay Rs.100/- 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.1100/- as litigation expenses.      
   4. By way of punitive damages, to deposit Rs.5,000/- in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.
8.         This order shall be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08.06.2023

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER