Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 685
Instituted on : 06.12.2019
Decided on : 21.10.2022.
Ashok Kumar Verma s/o Sh. Nand Kishor R/o H.No.2967 Ward no.Gijji Road, Sampla, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Vishal Mega Mart, 136/22, Vikas Nagar Sonipat Road, Rohtak through its Manager.
- Airplaza Retail Holding Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office 5th Floor, Platinum Tower, Plot no.184 Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Gurugram through its Director/Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Savita Saini, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Vikram Singh Ohlan, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that complainant had purchased some clothes and household articles from the retail shop of opposite party No.1 on dated 10.11.2019 for a sum of Rs.1453/- after discount. But the opposite party no.1 charged Rs.1467/- from the complainant and when the complainant reached home and see the bill, he noticed that an amount of Rs.14/- has been charged for carry bag from the complainant. Whereas the complainant has never requested to supply carry bag as the complainant himself was carrying a carry bag from his house. The respondent has illegally charged Rs.14/- from the complainant as cost of carry bag whereas he never demanded any carry bag from the respondent no.1. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.14/- as cost of carry bag and also be directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the complainant was made well aware by the employee of the company, at the sale counter about the charges for different variants of the carry bags and also informed the complainant of the option to use his own carry bag, in case he does not wish to purchase the carry bag from the said store.. The complainant purchased the bag for Rs.14/- on his own will and desire and there was no force/coercion on him to buy the said carry bag. The option to use his own carry bag had been given to the complainant before goods were punched in the computer for generating the bill and the consent to purchase the carry bag has been generated by the complainant prior to the generation of the bill at the concerned store. Complainant never contacted the opposite party or any of their employees and has made allegations against the store without producing any proof. It is submitted that opposite party has displayed at the billing counter and also at various places of its store, that the customers may purchase the carry bags of different variants as per their requirements, which are available at the Store at different prices. It is also submitted that opposite party has also displayed at the entry gate of its store that the customers can bring their own empty carry bags to carry the goods purchased from the store and thereby inviting customers to bring their own empty carry bags inside the store for the goods purchased from the store. The opposite party is not liable to provide free carry bags to all the consumers who purchase the goods from its store. It is denied that complainant asked any employee of the opposite party about charging of carry bag by the opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 and closed his evidence on dated 17.03.2021. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 31.03.2022.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, opposite party has admitted the fact that complainant purchased the bag for Rs.14/- from the respondent. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, it is submitted that it is the prime duty of the opposite party to provide carry/shopping bag free of cost to the complainant and other customers. Hence the charging of alleged amount of carry bag from the complainant is illegal. On the other hand ld. contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party is that the complainant purchased the bag for Rs.14/- on his own will and desire and there was no force/coercion on him to buy the said carry bag. The opposite party is not liable to provide free carry bags to all the consumers who purchase the goods from its store. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon the complaint No.251/2018 decided by DCDRF(Central) ISBT Kashmere Gate Delhi, titled as Radhakrishnan R. Vs. Westside , Karol Bagh, CC no.68/2019 decided by CDRF South Goa at Margao, titled as Mr. Calvert Gonsalves Vs. Air- Plaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd.-III(Vishal Mega Mart) and First Appeal No.493/2019 decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi titled as Himanshi Saini Vs. Westside.
6. We have gone through the judgments cited above by ld. counsel for the opposite party and have also placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble State Commission, U.T.Chandigarh in Appeal No.98 of 2019 decided on 17.05.2019 Bata India Vs. Dinesh Parshad, Appeal No.59 of 2020 decided on 30.09.2021, titled as M/s Trends Reliance Retail Ltd. Vs. Reema Beri order dated 22.10.2020 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petitions No.(975 to 988) of 2020 titled as Big Bazaar(Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar etc. whereby Hon’ble National Commission has upheld the order of District Forum as well as State Commission, whereby the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party was determined. The alleged judgments are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case whereas judgments cited above by ld. Counsel for the opposite party are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also observed that opposite party has failed to prove its case that the carry bag was separately purchased by the complainant of his own free will. Hence the opposite party has illegally charged Rs.14/- for providing the carry bag to the complainant and there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund Rs.14/-(Rupees fourteen only), to pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.1 shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.1014/- from the date of order till its realization to the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.10.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
