DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 95 of 2022.

 

1. Smt. Kanika Deb,

D/O. Sri Babul Deb,

R/O. West Taranagar,

P.O.-Mohanpur, Pin-799211,

P.S.-Sidhai,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala….......................................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

1. NIBEDITA (A Departmental Store), 

  T.G. Road, Krishnanagar, Agartala,

P.S.-West Agartala, Pin-799002,

Dist.-West Tripura …............................................................................ Opposite Party.

 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

  Advocate.

 

For the O.P.  : Sri Sankar Lodh, 

  Sri Kishalay Roy,

  Advocates. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 31/08/2022.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Smt. Kanika Deb, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  complaining against the O.P. for deficiency of service. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that on 28/01/2022 the Complainant went to NIBEDITA (A Departmental Store), T.G. Road, Krishnanagar, Agartala for purchasing some grocery items and while entering inside into the Shopping Mall, the staff of O.P. at the entrance gate does not allow the Complainant to enter within their business premises with carry bags which the Complainant brought with him. Thereafter she went to the bill counter for payment of the goods, the staff of the bill counter took carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of those purchased articles without asking her in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state,so that its physical possession could be handed over to him. But surprisingly the staff of the cash counter told him to pay extra Rs.5/- for carry bag. Then the Complainant was forced to pay Rs.5/- extra as the carry bag charge in Cash Memo/Invoice Vide No.INV/236227, dated 28/01/2022. Thereafter, she made contact with the Store Manager of the mall but from there also she did not get any proper response of extra charge for carry bag and she also enquired on what basis they charged for Rs.5/- for low quality carry bag and also asked them to provide him any circular regarding that issue but they did not pay any attention of her queries. She again went to the bill counter for rectification of bill and requested the staff of the cash counter to remove the extra charge of carry bag but surprisingly the staff of the cash counter loudly told him in front of the other customers of the mall that rectification of bill is not possible. As a result she had to suffer mental pressure, agony and faced harassment infront of the other customers which was unbearable to him. Hence, there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of O.P. namely “NIBEDITA” (A Departmental Store), T.G. Road, Krishnanagar, Agartala.

Hence this case. 

2. Notice was issued upon the O.P. for appearance and filing of W.O. but inspite of receiving notice O.P. did not turn up. As a result the case is proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. vide order dated 03/08/2022.   

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

Complainant has examined herself as PW-I and she has submitted her examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant has produced 03 documents under a Firisti dated 29/03/2022. The documents are namely the Original Cash Memo, Photocopy of Cash Memo and the Carry bag. The documents are not exhibited due to absence of the Complainant on the date of argument.       

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the Complainant and having regard to the evidence adduced by the Complainant, the following points are to be determined:

    (i). Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant?

    (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?           

EX-PARTE ARGUMENT :-

              On the date of argument Complainant side was absent as a result judgment is delivered on merit. 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

Both issues are taken up together for the convenience.

          We have gone through the complaint and also evidence adduced from the side of the Complainant.

          On perusal of the complaint it is found that the crux of the allegation is that Complainant was compelled to purchase carry bag which is illegal. Complainant in support of the complaint adduced one invoice and one carry bag but they are not exhibited. Since it is an ex-parte proceeding burden lies upon the Complainant to prove that he was forced to purchase a carry bag on payment of extra. Complainant failed to exhibit any document and carry bag. Moreover invoice does not show the name of the Complainant as purchaser. 

      In the instant case invoice is the vital document. Since we did not find any name of the purchaser in the invoice, we hold that Complainant is not able to prove that she herself purchased the carry bag from the Departmental Store of the O.P.   

7.        In view of the above discussion we are in the opinion that Complainant has failed to prove her case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.       

          Supply a certified copy of the judgment to the Complainant free of cost.     

 

        Announced.

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.