DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.1338 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  31.07.2019                                              Date of decision   :  12.10.2021

Isha Gupta wife of Shri Amit Kumar Gupta, resident of H.No.1623, Ground Floor, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Central (A Division of FLFL) North Country Mall, NH-21, Mohali Kharar Road, Mohali 160118 India through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2.     Central (A Division of FLFL) North Country Mall, NH-21, Mohali Kharar Road, Mohali 160118 India through its Manager.

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties        

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Ms. Gagandeep Gosal,  Member

Present:    Shri Amit Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the OPs.

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

Order

               The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short), on the ground that on 22.03.2019 she went to the outlet of the OPs in order to by some clothes and other items. After the purchase when she reached the billing counter, she had received an invoice of Rs.2,809/- and the CC made the payment through her debit card. On verification she found that the total price of the clothes was only Rs.2,799/- but the OPs had raised an invoice of Rs.2,809/- by including Rs.10/- for the carry bag in which the CC was supposed to carry her clothes. The CC raised objection to charging of Rs.10/- for the carry bag but the employees of the OPs refused to listen to the grievance of the CC and informed her that it is a general practice to charge extra for the carry bags. The CC had no choice except to pay Rs.10/- for carrying the clothes to her home.

                Thus terming the act of OPs as illegal, malpractice and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought refund of Rs.10/- charged by the OPs for the carry bag with interest @ 12% and compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for harassment. Further the CC has demanded Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by affidavit of the CC.

2.             In reply the OPs have raised a number of preliminary objections on the ground that the complaint of CC is baseless and misconceived. It is further averred that the amount was charged on the basis of environmentally responsible policy aimed at encouraging customers to carry their own shopping bags. The policy is designed to incentivize consumers to carry their own bags and to reuse bags already in their ownership instead of obtaining a fresh paper bag on every purchase thereby contributing to deforestation and environmental damage. It is further averred that pursuant to the said decision to adopt green policies, the OPs encourage its customers to carry their own bags, so that damage caused by new plastic/paper bags is minimized. It is further averred that this message is conveyed to the customers through advertisements and posters at the stores of the OPs, including at the store wherefrom the complainant had purchased the products. It is further averred that in the said advertisements/posters, it is categorically stated that in case a customer wishes to purchase a carry bag, the same can be made available at the store of the OPs for a separate charge.  On merits all the averments of the complaint have been denied. The OPs have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint by justifying receipt of Rs.10/- for the carry bag from the complainant. The version of the OPs is signed and verified

3.             The CC in support of her complaint submitted her duly attested affidavit and photocopy of the bill Ex.C-1. On the other hand no evidence has been submitted by the OPs.

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

5.             The point in controversy before us is whether the OPs could charge Rs.10/- for the carry bag from the CC and whether the act of the OPs is justified and is in consonance with the rules and laws. To our mind, it is very surprising that if someone purchases some goods from a shop, then how it is possible that the person to carry those goods out of the show room without any carry bag or in the absence of carry bag how could he carry those articles in his hands. We feel that it was incumbent upon the OPs to provide a carry bag to the CC free of charge since this carry bag is definitely a part and parcel of purchases done by the CC. We feel, that non supply of carry bag to carry the articles sold by the OPs to the CC is definitely a mal practice adopted by the OPs. Same kind of malpractice is also adopted by number of traders in India who are also charging exorbitant amount of money in the name of carry bags from customers every day and adding to unfair revenue. We feel that such type of malpractice or unfair trade practice has to be curbed with strong hands.  It would be better if the OPs provide environment friendly/recyclable paper bags to their customers keeping in mind the protection of the environment.

6.             Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a benevolent legislature enacted by the Govt. to provide speedy and substantial justice to the parties.  The very purpose of the Act is to curb unfair trade practice adopted by the traders, who make money by adopting such unfair means. We feel, that the very purpose of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 will fail if such type of practice is allowed among traders and in the society.

7.             It is also possible that the OPs must have collected thousands of rupees from various customers in such a manner. It is also possible that OPs must have continued this practice for years and had collected huge amount. In order to curb such malpractice, it is important to impose special cost on the OPs so that correct message should go in the society and such traders will think thousand times before adopting this practice again.

8.             Accordingly, present complaint is allowed. It is ordered that the OPs will refund amount of Rs.10/- to the CC within 30 days from receipt of free certified copy of this order. The OPs will also pay compensation to the CC to the tune of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five Hundred only). It is further ordered that the OPs will also deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten  Thousand only) in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund of PGIMER Chandigarh. It is further ordered that in case the amount is not deposited or paid by the OPs within 30 days, the OPs will have to pay interest @ 12% per annum. It is further ordered that the Director of the PGIMER Chandigarh will use this fund solely and exclusively for the purpose of helping poor patients of the Tricity and other States for their medicines as and when required by them and will maintain a proper record of the same.  Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties.   File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

October 12, 2021

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

                                                        I agree

(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)

Member