Haryana

StateCommission

A/1116/2019

VISHAL MEGA MART - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARAMJEET KAUR - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

16 Jan 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.1116 of 2019

Date of Institution:24.12.2019

Date of decision:16.01.2020

 

Vishal Mega Mart, Ambala-2 House No.95, 96 and 60, Prem Nagar, Ambala City, through its Manager.

…Appellant

Versus

 

Paramjeet Kaur W/o Late Shri Balbir Singh R/o-547, Sonia Colony Ambala City.

 

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mrs. Manjula, Presiding Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Devinder Kumar,  Advocate for the appellant.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

MANJULA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

 

There is a delay of 15 days in filing the appeal. The grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and in the interest of justice, delay of 15 days is allowed.

2.      The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint has been allowed with direction to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.25/- charged for the carry bags and to pay Rs.1500/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and also to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.

3.      The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that  on 05.08.2019, she (complainant) purchased grocery items of Rs.3158.94 from the opposite party (O.P.). After payment, the cashier of O.P. handed over the grocery items to her without carry bag and when she asked to provide the carry bag, the official of the OP told her to buy a carry bag.  It was not possible to carry all the grocery items without carry bags, she left with no other option and had purchased two carry bags for Rs.25/- (Rs.12.50/- each).  Thus there was unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.

4.       OP was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 25.09.2019.

5.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 06.11.2019 and granted relief is mentioned in para No.2 of the order.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

7.      The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Devinder Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire record of the appellate file has been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that customers are allowed to carry their own bag into the store to carry the goods purchased from the store, and in case they want to purchase bag from the store, they will have to pay charge for the same.  The appellant company rightly charged the amount of carry bag from the complainant-respondent. 

9.       Since, the complainant-respondent has purchased grocery items of Rs.3158.94 from the OP. The O.P. forcing the consumers to pay additionally for the carry bag amounts to unfair trade practice. In the impugned order, the complainant-respondent has relied upon order of Chandigarh State Commission titled M/s  Life style International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Chandgothia and others, 2019 (2) CLT 410 (CHD), wherein a person who buys some articles/products from the shop premises like the appellant, OP is expected to provide with free carry bag to carry those articles. Learned District Forum has already rightly granted compensation to her needs no interference. There is no merit in the appeal and order of learned District Forum is rightly upheld, hence, the present appeal stands dismissed in limine.

 

16th  January, 2020                                               Manjula                                                                                                                                 Presiding Member                                                             

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)