Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/351/2020

Shailendra Kumar Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Vishal Mega Mart - Opp.Party(s)

Ammish Goel

23 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	351/ 2020
Date of Institution	:	13.08.2021
Date of Decision	:	23.08.2021

 

                                       

                                               

Shailendra Kumar  Pal s/o Sh.Ram Autar Pal aged about 36 years r/o H.No.2434, Sector 38 West, DMC, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

M/s Vishal Mega Mart, 104/105, Near Fountain City Garden, Sector 5, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE:   

SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

Argued by

                   Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for complainant

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the OP.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         The facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that he purchased clothes worth Rs.6407/- vide invoice dated 09.08.2020. He made the payment of the Bill to the OP and he was surprised to see that a sum of Rs.18/- was charged on account of carry bag to which he objected to and told the cashier that it was illegal to charge for the carry bag.  It has further been averred that it was nowhere mentioned in the entire shop premises that the OP will charge for carry bag/shopping bag also.  It has further been averred that the Opposite Party 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 complainant was made well aware by the Store Executive at the sale counter about the charges for different variants of the carry bags and also informed him of the option to use his own carry bag in case he does not wish to purchased the same.  It has further been stated that  the complainant himself requested the Sale Executive for purchase of the carry bag of Rs.18/- and chosen by his voluntarily and after looking at sizes of all the available carry bags.  It has further been pleaded that the OP clearly displayed at the billing counter and also at various places in the store that the customer may purchased the carry bags of different variants as per their requirements. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the OP 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 on behalf of the OP is that the OP displayed at various places that the customer may purchase the carry bags of different variants as per their requirements and the consumers are requested to carry their own bags 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, therefore, taking advantage of its dominating position.
5.         At any rate, the Opposite Party 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.
6.         Besides this, if the Opposite Party claims itself to be responsible and environmentally conscious, then they should have given the carry bags to the customers free of cost because in our considered view, the price of the carry bag has generally been included by them 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.
7.         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.

8.       In view of the above discussions, the consumer complaint deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is accordingly allowed qua it. The Opposite Party is directed:-
   1. to refund Rs.18/- i.e. cost of carry bag to the complainant.
   2. to pay Rs.500/- 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.2,100/- as litigation expenses.      
9.         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall be liable to pay the amount at Sr.No.(i) to (iii) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order, till its realization.
10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

23.08.2021.

Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER