DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:  CC- 288 of 2022.

 

 

Sri Nirmal Chandra Saha,

S/O- Late Nagendra Chandra Saha,

College Tilla, Opp. B.B.M. College, 

P.O. Agartala College, P.S. East Agartala, 

Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799004. …..................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

Prandeep Mart,

Near Ramthakur Sangha Sanitala,

Chitranjan Road, Agartala,

P.S. East Agartala, 

Dist.- West Tripura-799001,

(To be represented by 

the Proprietor/Store Manager). ..................... Opposite Party.

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  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,

  Smt. Rinku Shil,

  Learned Advocates.

  

For the O.P.  : Mr. Prangopal Saha,  

  Authorized Representative. 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 09.09.2022

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant 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 25.04.2022 the Complainant went to Prandeep Mart Departmental Store,  Near Ramthakur Sangha, Agartala for purchasing some grocery items.  While entering inside the store, staff of O.P. at the entrance did not allow the complainant to enter within their store premises with carry bag which the complainant brought with him. However, the complainant entered inside the store after leaving his carry bag. After purchasing those items when proceeded to the bill counter for payment, the staffs of the billing counter took out carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of those articles without asking the complainant in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to the complainant. Then the staff of the cash counter told him to pay Rs.03.07/- extra as the charge of carry bag vide cash memo/invoice No.13224, dated 25.04.2022. Though he had no intention to purchase the carry bag he was forced to pay the price of the carry bag. The complainant contacted with the store manager, from there also did not get any proper response of the extra charge for the carry bag. As those items were necessary for him he was forced to pay Rs.03.07/- for the same. The complainant stated that the for the act of the O.P. he has suffered mental pressure, agony and faced harassment in front of the other customer which was unbearable to him and beyond exception from such a reputed Departmental Store. It is also stated by the complainant that the O.P. are selling cheap quality of carry bag in high rate violating the rules and regulations. The act of the O.P. for charging extra for the carry bag amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. Hence, complainant filed this case claiming compensation of Rs.80,003.07/- for causing harassment, mental agony etc. along with litigation cost. 

2. After getting notice form this Commission the O.P. appeared and filed written reply denying the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition. In their written statement they have stated that the complainant filed the complaint with baseless allegations and it is liable to be dismissed. In the written statement O.P mainly contended that every customer is allowed to bring their own bag to carry the goods and a large visible font at the main entrance of the store and also at the bill desk are fixed for information ''Bring your own carry bag'' & '' Say no to Plastic'' and it is in display to all customer. They also denied that the staff of billing counter took the carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of those articles without asking the complainant. It is further contended  that there is MRP printed on the body of the bag and there is no printed advertisement of the Departmental Store of the O.P. It is not mandatory to purchase the bag during purchase of any other commodities. Only upon the verbal request/ demand of the customer the staff of the O.P. sells shopping bag to the customer and generate  bill.  It is further contended that MRP and selling price is always mentioned in the bill and complainant mislead the Commission suppressing the real fact. It is further contended that in compliance of Section 36(5) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 O.P. has provided free card board packing to the customer and it is upon the customer, if he choose to buy any carry bag from the store of the O.P. for his personal purpose. And lastly, it is prayed to dismiss the complainant as it devoid of merit.  

  

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

The complainant has submitted the examination in chief on affidavit as P.W.1. He submitted 2 documents namely Invoice/cash memo and 'Carry bag' vide Firisthi dated 26.04.2022. On identification the photocopy of the invoice/cash memo is marked as Exhibit-1 and the 'Carry Bag' is marked as M.O.1.   

  On the other hand, Mr. Prangopal Saha Partner of the Departmental Store of Prandeep Mart has submitted examination in chief on affidavit as D.W.1. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

On perusal of the Complaint and written reply following points cropped up for determination:-

  (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?  

 

5. ARGUMENT:-

  Heard argument of both sides. At the time of argument Learned Counsel Mr. Sampad Choudhury for the complainant submitted that Exhibit- 1, invoice clearly speaks that O.P. has charged extra for the carry bag which is most illegal under Sub-section 5 of Section 36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and the complainant was forced to pay the price of the carry bag Rs.3.07/ extra for the carry bag. He further submitted that the acts of the O.P. amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. and unfair trade practice and complainant is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency on service on the part of the O.P. 

 

 

On the other hand, Mr. Prangopal Saha who appeared on behalf of the O.P. submitted that in the invoice (Exhibit-1) it is clearly mentioned that the MRP of the bag is Rs.03.07/- and it is also shown that it is an item and it was sold after taking consent of the parties and there was no compelling circumstance or no force was applied to the customer for purchasing carry bag. He further submitted that the carry bag has no printed advertisement of the Departmental Store and selling of carry bag is not restricted by any law. When the carry bag(Exhibit-1) was shown to him he denied the selling of such carry bag which does not bear any MRP and he further submitted that exhibit M.O.1 is not purchased from their departmental store. And lastly he submitted that complainant has failed to prove M.O.1.  

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

  Both issues are taken up together for the convenience. We have perused the complaint as well as written reply and the evidence adduced by both side. Complainant in his examination in chief simply stated that staff of the billing counter took out a carry bag of their own for the purpose of packing those articles without asking him in order to bring it in a complete deliverable state and surprisingly  the staff of the billing counter told him to pay Rs.3.07/- extra for the carry bag. In the examination in chief he also stated that no where in the carry bag MRP is printed. 

 

  On the other hand, from the examination in chief submitted by the D.W.1, it is found that they did not admit the allegation of forceful selling of the carry bag and after taking consent of the customer it was sold. It is further stated that the carry bag bears printed MRP which was sold to complainant.

 

7. In the instant case Exhibit-1 and Exhibit M.O.1 is the vital piece of evidence. Complainant in his evidence stated that there was no printing of MRP in the carry bag but D.W.1 stated that they have sold carry bag which bears printed MRP. We can not disbelieve the statement of the D.W.1 as because invoice specifically supports the version of the D.W.1 and it is the duty of the customer to verify at the time of purchasing goods whether goods itself bears any printed MRP or not. At the time of argument Mr. Prangopal Saha vehemently opposed that it is not their sold out carry bag as because M.O.1 does not bear any MRP.

 

8. Hence, we hold that complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. 

  Supply copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.