Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/57/2019

N.Sandeep Chandra, S/o. N.C.S.M.Prasad, Rep. by N.C.S.M.Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Unlimited Show Room, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

National Association of Consumers (NAC)

20 Feb 2020

ORDER

                                                                                                         Filing Date: 27-05-2019                                                                                                   Order Date: 20-02-2020

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

 

Present:-  Sri. T.Anand, President (FAC)

      Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

THURSDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

 

C.C.No.57/2019

Between

Sri. N. Sudeep Chandra S/o. N.C.S.M.Prasad,

Aged about 23 years, Residing at # 581,

Balaji Colony, Tirupati – 517502. 

(Represented by Mr. N.C.S.M.Prasad,

President, National Association of Consumers).                                 ... Complainant

 

And

M/s. Unlimited Show Room,

Represented by its authorized Signatory,

Near HDFC Bank, AIR Bypass Road,

Tirupati - 517501.                                                                                … Opposite Party

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 14.02.2020 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.N.C.S.M.Prasad, President of National Association of Consumers (NAC) represented to the complainant and Sri.K.Rajesh, counsel for the opposite party having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

         Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging as follows:-  The complainant purchased dresses worth Rs.3,205/- vide manual bill/tax invoice No.UL5000-17773 dt: 07.05.2019. As per the GST rules, the opposite party has to mention their address on the tax invoice issued to the customer. But the opposite party has violated the GST rules and issued the tax invoice without mentioning their address. As per the GST rules, the opposite party has to mention their GSTIN on the tax invoice issued to the customer. But the opposite party has violated the GST rules and issued the tax invoice without mentioning their GSTIN. As per the GST rules, the opposite party has have to mention HSN code in the tax invoice issued to the customer. But the opposite party has violated the GST rules and issued the tax invoice without mentioning HSN Code. As per the GST rules, the opposite party has to mention the applicable rate of CGST/SGST in the tax invoice issued to the customer. But the opposite party has violated the GST rules and issued the tax invoice without mentioning rate of CGST/SGSTS applicable to my transaction. Thus I have lost my legitimate right to know the rate as well as amount of CGST/SGST paid by me to the Government of India and Government of Andhra Pradesh respectively.

         2. The opposite party show room collected Rs.7/- from the complainant towards cost of paper bag (Carry bag) which the opposite party supposed to provide at free of cost on purchase of items. The bag is printed with opposite party’s brand name i.e. UNLIMITED. Thus the opposite party used the consumer for their own publicity that to charging Rs.7/- from the consumer. The opposite party have to supply bags at free of cost with their own logo/ brand name for which the customers do not have any objection, it amounts unfair trade practice by opposite party. The complainant issued legal notice dt:08.05.2019 registered post with acknowledgment due vide postal receipt number RN402579566IN dt:09.05.2019 and the same was received by the opposite party on 10.05.2019 but there was no response from the opposite party and as such the complainant approached this forum to seek redressal for direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.7/- collected from him towards cost of paper bag and also compensation to the tune of Rs.4,90,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.6,000/-.

          3.The opposite party filed written version contending as follows:- The complainant is called upon to prove that he visited their show room on 07.05.2019 and purchased clothes worth Rs.3,205/- under bill No.UL5000-17773 dt:07.05.2019. Due to the computer glitches and software up-gradation during that period, opposite party provided manual bill. But online bill is now filed for perusal of the forum. If the complainant had requested for computerized bill, the opposite party would have provided the same but the intention of the complainant is to create litigations and cause hardship to the opposite party. Paras 3, 4 and 5 are repetitive. The opposite party never provided branded or printed carry bag to the complainant as alleged and it is utter false. It is denied that the opposite party collected Rs.7/- from the complainant towards cost of carry bag but the same is provided at free of cost. The opposite party never indulged in unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. It is submitted that the opposite party is a renowned organization and has its own reputation and the father of the complainant filed frivolous cases without any basis before this forum by dragging innocent and reputed people as well as the general public. At large due to software up-gradation issues, manual bill was issued to the complainant. The GST particulars will be loaded in the system and same was mentioned in online bill. Since the opposite party is branded show room, issuing manual bill will not arise and it will occur during software up-gradation. The judgment of Consumer Forum at Chandigarh is not binding on this forum. The opposite party never insisted or compelled the complainant to buy any bag much less bearing the logo/brand name of this opposite party. The complainant and his father are very enlightened persons and socially responsible citizens and having awareness of carry own bag and can spread awareness about the same in the society. The opposite party never gave its bag embedded with company logo or name for advertisement to the complainant for publicity but the opposite party is giving only bags without any brand name or logo therefore the complaint allegations are false and as such it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

          4. The complainant filed chief affidavit as PW-I and marked Ex:A1 to A5. On behalf of opposite party, one C. Balakrishna, S/o. C. Ravishankar, authorized person of the opposite party filed his evidence affidavit as RW-1 and Ex:B1 to B3 were marked. Both parties filed their respective written arguments and submitted oral arguments.

          5.  Now the Point for consideration is:-

               Whether there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?

           6.Point:-  Ex:A1 is manual bill dt: 07.05.2019 issued by UNLIMITED Show Room for purchasing clothes worth Rs.3,205/- by the complainant. The opposite party is also not disputing in the same. However they filed Ex:B1 which is computerized bill.  It is the submission of the opposite party that they could not provide online bill to the complainant on 07.05.2019 due to technical glitch and software up-gradation and subsequently the online bill was taken and filed in the forum. It is further submitted by opposite party counsel that, had the complainant demanded the online bill subsequently they could have provided the same but without asking online bill the complainant rushed to forum to file the complaint against opposite party without any basis. Ex:A2 is carry bag showing printed letters with UNLIMITED FAMILY FASHION STORE. Ex:A3 is notice issued dt: 08.05.2019 by complainant to opposite party alleging that they indulged in unfair trade practice by collecting Rs.7/- for carry bag having logo of opposite party company and thus used complainant for their publicity. It is the contention of complainant that the opposite party ought to have supplied carry bag at free of cost instead of charging Rs.7/- for bag. Ex:A4 is acknowledgment of opposite party for receiving the legal notice. Ex:A5 is documents containing internet copy which shows what are the mandatory fields a GST invoice should have. Anyway as the online bill is filed the same should contain the particulars of GST. The contention of complainant that GST particulars are not mentioned in Ex:A1 looses significance in the light of online bill Ex:B1 produced by opposite party. Ex:B2 is the document showing caption BYOB (Bring Your Own Bag). This document is filed by the opposite party in order to show that option is given to the customer to purchase paper carry bag at the cost of Rs.7/- or they can bring their own bags for shopping. So it is argued by opposite party counsel that the contention of complainant that the customers were forced to take carry bag by paying Rs.7.25Ps in their showroom when they come for purchasing items cannot be accepted.

          7. The complainant argued that the opposite party indulged in unfair trade practice and in support of his contention he has submitted a decision of District Consumer Forum of Chandigarh wherein it is held that: i) If the Opposite party is sincerely concerned about the environment, the opposite party should provide the paper bags, free of cost to its consumers.

       ii) It was further observed by the Forum that the opposite party is using ‘unfair trade practice’ in the mask of the ‘plastic-ban regulation’ to earn money from the customers.

         Analysis of District Consumer Forum of Chandigarh:-

         Under Section 2(r)(ix) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the definition of “Unfair Trade Practices” includes trade practice which “materially misleads the public concerning the price at which a product or like product or goods or services, have been or are, ordinarily sold or provided, and, for this purpose, a representation as to price shall be deemed to refer to the price at which the product or goods or services has or have been sold by sellers or provided by suppliers generally in the relevant market unless it is clearly specified to be the price at which the product has been sold or services have been provided by the person by whom or on whose behalf the representation is made”.

         In the present case, the opposite party has misled the Complainant projecting that the price of the paper bag advertising the brand of the Opposite party has to be compulsorily purchased along with the item purchased by the consumer. The complainant on approaching the Forum analysed the facts of the case and held that the Opposite party is trying to ‘mint money’ using unfair trade practices, at the expense of the consumers and thus penalized the Opposite party, for the same.

          9. In another decision of SCDRC between M/s. Dominos, Jubilant Food works Limited Vs. Jitender Bansal son of Sh.Kishori Lal Bansal., The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commision, Union Territory, Chandigarh gave direction to opposite party as follows:-

                 a) Provide free carry-bags to all customers forthwith who purchase articles          

                      from its outlet/selling centers;

 

                 b) refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.12/- wrongly charged for the

                      paper carry-bag;

 

                 c)  pay Rs.1,500/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment      

                     and mental agony as well as litigation expenses.

 

                 d)  deposit Rs.10,000/- in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account”              

                      No.2892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C,

                      Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary of this Commission.

 

                 e) However, it is made clear that statutory deposit made by the opposite party  

                     (appellant herein) at the time of filing or during the pendency of the appeal

                      shall be adjusted towards the total decretal amount.

 

                  f) deposit Rs.4,90,000/- in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund (PPWF) of

                      PGIMER (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research),

                      Chandigarh and submit the receipt thereof with this Commission.

                

           10.  It is no doubt true that some photos are filed by opposite party. It is clear from Ex:A2 that the branded name of opposite  party showroom is printed on the carry bag. It is not the case of the opposite party that carry bag was purchased by the complainant. So the contention of complainant that the opposite parties have used the same for the purpose of their own advertisement has to be upheld. It is held by SCDRC Chandigarh as follows:-  

           i) All kinds of expenses incurred in order to putting goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller. It is not out of place to refer here the provisions of Sub Section (5) of Section 36 of the The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which makes it absolutely clear that unless otherwise agreed, the expenses of and incidental to putting the goods into a deliverable state shall be borne by the seller. Thus, under this provision of law, all the expenses with regard to packing etc. shall be borne by the vendor in order to putting the goods into a deliverable state.

         ii) In this case, the food items were put in the paper carry-bag having the name/insignia of the appellant printed thereon in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state so that its physical possession be handed over to the complainant. It is not the case of the opposite party that the carry bag was separately purchased by the complainant/purchaser, rather the opposite parties have used the same for the purpose of their own advertisement and to put the things into a deliverable state. Thus, all the expenses have to be borne by the opposite parties i.e. M/s. Dominos. In this view of the matter, the opposite parties have no right to recover the expenses borne by them on the packing of goods or putting the goods in a deliverable state.

 

          In view of the above citations we are of the view that, the opposite party indulged in unfair trade practice as defined under section 2(r)(ix) of Consumer Protection Act and as such the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

           11. In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay the cost of the carry bag i.e. Rs.7.00/- (Rupees seven only) collected from the complainant and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) towards compensation due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of the litigation expenses. The order shall be complied by opposite party within period of six (6) weeks failing which, the above said compensation amount of Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 20^th day of February, 2020.

             Sd/-                                                                                                    Sd/-

   Lady Member                                                                                           President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Sri N. Sudeep Chandra (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Sri C. Balakrishna (Evidence affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of MANUAL CASH BILL/TAX INVOICE issued by UNLIMITED Arvind Lifestyle Brands Limited. Dt: 07.05.2019.
	Paper Carry Bag of UNLIMITED Show Room in Original.
	Notice sent to the opposite party. Dt: 08.05.2019.
	Postal Acknowledgement (Original). Dt: 10.05.2019.
	Self attested photo copy of GST Rules and Sample Tax Invoice.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Bill issued to the Complainant. Dt: 07.05.2019.
	Colour photo copy of “BYOB (Bring Your Own Bag)” display kept in opposite party show room.
	Memo for Photographs(3) with C.D filed by the opposite party.

 

                Sd/-

                                        President (FAC)

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                   2) The Opposite party.