Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 310.

                                                                   Instituted on     : 02.07.2019.

                                                                   Decided on       : 16.03.2021.

Sandeep Mittal Advocate, aged 47 years son of Shri B.R. Mittal, resident of H. No.245 Sector-14, Rohtak.

                                                                                                                                                                             ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

M/s Vishal Mega Mart 136/22 Vikas Nagar Sonipat Road, Rohtak through its Manager.

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Vikas Attry, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vikram Singh Ohlan, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased two  bottles of Roohafza  Sharbat from the respondent’s  retail showroom on dated 5.6.2019 for a sum of Rs.270/-, but the respondent has charged Rs.284/- from the complainant and when he saw the bill, he shocked that the respondent have charged Rs.14/- for carry bag from the complainant. It is the responsibility of the respondent to handover the purchased articles in carry bag to customer free of cost, but the respondent has illegally charged Rs.14/- from the complainant as cost of carry bag, which is quite illegal and against the well settled business principles. The complainant approached the officials of opposite party and requested them to disburse the compensation in his favour and also served a legal notice dated 6.6.2019 but after repeated requests the opposite party did not disburse the amount of claim. 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.25,000/- on account of harassment as well as an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written reply. Opposite party has denied the fact that complainant was forced to purchase the carry bag in question. 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. It is submitted that opposite party has 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. 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 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 17.12.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on dated 10.02.2020.

4.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                As per the bill placed on record as Ex.C1, opposite party had charged Rs.14/- from the complainant on account of carry bag. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, he did not need any bag as he was having his own bag with him but the opposite party had forced the complainant to purchase the carry bag. Hence the charging of alleged amount of carry bag from the complainant is illegal. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon  CC/19/187 decided on 09.12.2020 by DCDRC, Kaithal titled as Vijay Kumar Vs. Easyday, Appeal No.98 of 2019 decided on 22.07.2019 by Hon’ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, titled as Bata India Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Parshad , R.P.No.158 of 2020 decided on 29.01.2020 by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi titled as Bata India Limited Vs. Mahesh Pareek.  On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that opposite party never forced the complainant to purchase the alleged carry bag but the carry bags are available at the store on chargeable basis. The complainant purchased the same from the store, hence he was charged Rs.14/- for the same. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance upon the law laid-down in CC 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), First Appeal No.493/2019 decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi titled as Himanshi Saini Vs. Westside, Appeal No.FA/15/149 decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Raipur Chhatisgarh Vikash Sharma Vs. M/s Vishal Megal Mart, CC no. 115/2018 decided by DCDRF Kangra at Dharamshala(HP) titled as Sh. Anil Sharma Vs. Big Bazar through CEO/MD.

6.                          We have gone through the judgments cited above by both the parties and have also placed reliance upon the 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 law and the judgments cited above by ld. Counsel for the complainant 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 illegal charged rs.14/- for providing the carry bag from 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 the amounts awarded will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till 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:

16.03.2021          

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          …………………………………

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.