Haryana

StateCommission

A/320/2022

RELIANCE RETAIL LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NISHA - Opp.Party(s)

SANJIV PABBI

29 Jul 2022

ORDER

E CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

          First Appeal No. 320 of 2022

                                                          Date of Instituion:14.07.2022

                                                          Date of decision: 29.07.2022

 

Reliance Retail Limited, Safidon Gate, Opposite Fire Brigade Office Tehsil and District Jind, Haryana-126102 through its Manager/Incharge through its Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Arunav Pankaj.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Nisha D/o Krishan Lal R/o H.No.732/7, Laxmi Nagar, Kaithal Road, Patiala Chowk, Jind, Haryana. 

…..Respondent

CORAM:    Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant.

                  

O R D E R

Manjula, Member:

 

1.      As per order dated 04.03.2022 contained in letter No.594, I am conducting these proceedings singly.

2.      The brief facts of the present case are that on 10.08.2019, complainant purchased some clothes for a total sum of Rs.2298/-. While making the payment, opposite party (OP) demanded Rs.2303/- (2298/- bill + 5/- carry bag). Thereafter, she asked OP that no shop can charge any amount from its customers for carry bag. Complainant alleged that OP had violated the business ethics and the law established by various courts. She sent a legal notice vide registered post dated 20.08.2019 to OP through her counsel for compensation but to no avail. Thus, there was deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the OP by filing its written reply before the District Commission. It was submitted that the customers can bring their own carry bag to carry the purchased items. It was further submitted by OP that carry bag charges were taken only after taking the consent of complainant. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on its part. Preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint, accruing cause of action etc. were also raised by OP and requested for dismissal of complaint.  

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jind accepted the complaint against OP vide order dated 17.05.2022.

5.      Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, Jind, Opposite Party-appellant has preferred this appeal before the State Commission.

6.      The argument has been advanced by Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire appeal has been properly perused and examined.

7.       It is not disputed that on 10.08.2019, complainant had purchased some clothes from OP for an amount of Rs.2298/-. The complainant made the payment of Rs.2303/- to OP including carry bag charges i.e. Rs.5/- only without her consent.

 

8.      However, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petitions No.975 of 2020 to 988 of 2020, in similar circumstances where a consumer was charged additional price for providing carry bags to its customers. District Forum now District Commission held the same to be unfair trade practice. The order was confirmed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and being further challenged by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 22.12.2020, upholding the same observed as under:-

“The Opposite party C. through its Chief Executive is ordered under Section 39 (1) (g) of the Act, 2019 [corresponding Section 14(1) (f) of the Act, 1986] to forthwith discontinue its unfair trade practice of arbitrarily and highhandedly imposing additional cost of carry bags on the consumer at the time of making payment, without prominent prior notice and information before the consumer makes his choice patronizing its retail outlets and before the consumer makes his selection of goods for purchase, as also without disclosing the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. The necessary notice/signs/announcement/advertisement/warning should be in the place and manner as may enable the consumer to make his informed choice of whether or not to patronize its retail outlets, and whether or not to make his selection of goods for purchase from its retail outlets. The notice or information cannot be at the occasion of making payment, after the consumer has exercised his choice to patronize its retail outlet, and after he has made his selection of goods for purchase.”

9.      In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances, we do not find any substance in the defence and pleadings of the OP. By charging an amount of Rs.5/- from complainant, the OP had certainly committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. OP was under obligation to provide carry bag free of cost to the complainant to facilitate her to carry the purchased items smoothly and conveniently to her home or destination. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in many judgments “charging for carry bag is illegal”. Thus, learned District Commission has rightly accepted the complaint of the complainant. The State Commission finds no reason or grounds to interfere with the order of learned District Commission. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed in liminie.

 

29^th July, 2022                     (Manjula)                                                                                                                                Member                                                                                           

 

M.S.