District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.470/2020.

 Date of Institution: 9.12.2020..

Date of Order: 01.09.2022.

Sukhvinder Singh son of Shri Khushwant Singh at present resident of H.No.C-7, Nehru  Ground, NIT, Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

M/s. Vishal mega Mart, 1C-52, 1C-51 & 1C-77, NIT, Faridabad through its proprietor.

                                                                   …Opposite party……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  Charan Singh,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Ms. Gurdeep Kaur, counsel for opposite party.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant used to make shopping form the opposite party from time to time as per his requirement.  On 27.07.2020 the complainant visited the opposite party’s place and purchased the domestic items worth approx. Rs.902/- as per cash memo/bill No. 5293100002965 dated 27.7.2020 but the opposite party also added an amount of Rs.12.50 towards the shopping bag and the total cash amount comes to Rs.914.50 which the complainant had paid to the opposite party as per their demand.  The complainant resisted for the same and informed to the concerned official that the opposite party cannot charge extra for the rough cloth bag.  Even the complainant disclosed this fact before the counter official and also informed him that he was advocate by profession and the opposite party  could not charge extra for the said rough cloth bag as per law as it was the moral duty of the opposite party to provide the same for taking the goods in a cover/shopping cloth bag to be supplied by the opposite party free of cost.  However, the opposite party misbehaved with the complainant and did not felt his guilt rather threatened the complainant to make the complainant as per his wish to any authority and the opposite party dam care for such people i.e. advocates etc. which caused hurt to the complainant being respectable person of society.   The complainant tried to persuade the opposite party but all in vain.  Even the opposite party threatened the complainant that in case he would make any complaint to any authority, the opposite party would involve the complainant in false and criminal cases to face with dire consequences.  The complainant sent a legal notice dated 21.10.2020 through speed post to opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                 pay Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest from the date of its due for causing mental agony and harassment .

b)                 pay Rs. 5500 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that   the complainant had misdirected himself in filing the captioned complaint before the Ld. Commission, as the grounds raised by the complainant were devoid of any merits and reasoning, and the complainant had failed to bring the present case  within the essential ingredients of the basic provisions of Consumers Protection act, 2019.  The complainant had tried to build upon his case on the grounds of deficiency in service.  However, no grounds and reasons were mentioned to support such allegations  .  The complainant was making entirely baseless allegations, for some ulterior motive as well as to bring disrepute to the opposite party.  It was submitted that the customers are free to bring their own empty carry bags into the store and take away the goods and commodities purchased by them from the store in the said carry bags brought by the customers. Photographs of the signage or notice allowing the customers to bring in their own carry bags in to the store to take away the goods and commodities purchased from store. and the photographs depicting the price of carry bag(s) available on chargeable basis at the sale counter. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– Vishal Mega Mart with the prayer to: a)         pay Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest from the date of its due for causing mental agony and harassment .b)  pay Rs. 5500 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Sukhvinder Singh,,Mark A – Adhaar card, Ex.C-1 – bill, ExC-2 – legal notice, Ex.C-3 – postal receipt.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and

opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.OP1/A – affidavit of Shri Himanshu Kumar s/o Sudhir Kumar, an employee of Vishal Mega Mart working as Store Manager at the retail store of the company address-1C-52, 1C-51 & 1C-77, NIT, Faridabad. Ex.OP-1 – authorization letter, Ex.OP-2 – photographs, Ex.OP3 – depicting the price of carry bags available on chargeable basis at the sale counter, Ex.OP4 – photographs.

6.                It is evident from Ex. OP2 that the  customers are free to bring their own carry bags into the store and take away the goods and commodities purchased by them from the store.  As per Ex.OP3 that opposite party had promptly and clearly displayed on the billing counter and various places throughout the store that the customer may purchase the carry bags of different variants as per their requirement, which are available at different prices as well,

7.                After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party is proved in the present case.

8.                Resultantly the complaint is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on:  01.09.2022                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.