Date of filing:- 06/12/2019. Date of Order:-14/08/2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DIPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 101 OF 2019
Bibekananda Mahapatra, S/o. Late Gaura Chandra Mahapatra, aged about 61 years, Resident of Padhanpali Road, S.S. Bhimraj Villa, Duplex No.4, At/Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Proprietor, VISHAL MEGA MART, At.Akash Complex, OLD, N.H. 6, Ward No.1, Bhatli Road, Bargarh Pin. 768028, Through Franchise Store operated by Air Plaza, Retail Holdings pvt.ltd.
Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Sri Mohit Kumar Mahapatra, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :- :- Sri S.S. Shukla with Associates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agarwal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.14/08/2023. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Anju Agarwal, Member (w) :-
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant on Dt. 25/11/2019 has purchased brink Men T. Shirt Regular Navy XL and Draftwood men Pyjama slim Beige XL and another item two. T.shirt i.e. Brink men colour slim D.K. Green XL from the Opposite Party and received tax invoice accordingly.
During the time of purchasing the Opposite party did not disclosed anything regarding shopping Bag and Opposite party calculated the charge of shopping bag/carry bag. The Opposite party has issued tax invoice Bill.no. 4114970007490, 4114970007481 and Bill No. 4134970013276 of the Counter No. 11 and 13 received the items with the carry bags, when the both carry bags were charged Rs.23/- to the Complainant. That the Complainant raised his voice regarding the unfair trade business and unlawful on the part of sold the carry bag using his logo with an amount of Rs. 23/- (Rupees twenty three)only to the Complainant. That the Complainant raised his voice regarding the unfair trade business and unlawful on the part of sold the carry bag using his logo with an amount of Rs.23/-(Rupees twenty three)only from the
Complainant.
For the unfair trade practice conducted by the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed this Complaint before this Commission.
- The case of the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party appeared and submitted its version stating that the Opposite party i.e. Vishal Mega mart is a brand name licensed to Airplaza Retail Holdings pvt.ltd a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. The Complainant has failed to bring the present case within the basic provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
As per the Decision of Honble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central) at Delhi, in the matter of Radhakrishnan R. Vs. Westside, Karol Bagh and Anr (CC. No. 251/2019) and Radhakrishnan R Vs. Vishal Mega Mart, Karol Bagh and Anr. (CC. No. 252/2019) wherein the ltd. Forum vide a concern under Dt. 28/01/2019 had rejected the Complaints of Complainant regarding changing of carry bags having advertisement of Vishal Mega mart, Korol Bagh and other issues at the admission stage it self. On Dt. 18/10/2019 and on Dt. 07/08/2019 Honble State Commission in the matter of Himanshi Saini Vs. Westside (FA/493/2019) Dismissed the appeal by Specifically noting that The shopkeeper is not under obligation to supply carry bags and that two without any cost.
That, the Complainant had visited the store of the Opposite Party on 21/11/2019 and 25/11/2019 and purchased few goods, after billing the Complainant was made well aware by the employee with the charges associated with the carry boy and after confirmation the Complainant was handed over the items in the carry bags and accordingly it was charged.
The Opposite Party has posted notices regarding the aforesaid matter at the billing counter as well as various places in the store. After purchase, the Complainant never contacted the store Manager or any other employee regarding the matter. The Opposite Party never Compelled Complainant to purchase the carry bag as alleged in the Complainant.
The act of Opposite party to make plastic carry bags chargeable is in adherence with the plastic waste management Rules 2011, which implemented the concept of plastic waste minimization, segregation, recycling and management. The intention of the legislature was to discourage and curb the excessive use of plastic carry bags and also reduce their irresponsible disposal. It was also submitted that there is no legal obligation on the Opposite Party as a retailer to provide the free carry bags under the applicable laws. That, the Opposite Party had never indulged in unfair trade practice in any manner. The Opposite Party has further submitted written arguments. The Opposite Party stated that the case to be dismissed.
- Perused the documents filed by the parties and following issues are framed:-
ISSUE
1. Whether there is deficiency in service or any unfair trade practive made but upon by the
Opposite Party.
2. What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
Issue No.1.
It is an admitted fact that the Complainant had paid Rs.9/-(Rupees nine)only and Rs. 14/-(Rupees forteen)only on Dt. 21/11/2019 and Dt. 25/11/2019 to the Opposite Party No.1 for carry bags. But of the two carry bags there was a carry bag having logo of the Opposite Party on its handles. The Complainant submitted that he has never been given information regarding charges of the carry bags but the Opposite has denied stating that notices has ben displayed regarding the prices of the carry bags.
The Opposite Party has charged price for two carry bags one is without logo and one with logo of the Company. The Opposite Party has sold the carry bag with logo without any notice and information to the customer/consumer. The Opposite Party is selling the plastic/carry bags under the Company logo, for their act, the Opposite Party is using the Complainant as a medium for their advertisement which amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice. (As a matter of Consumer rights, the Consumer has the right to know regarding the additional charges regarding the carry bags before he makes the selection of goods for purchase from the said retail outlets)
The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2.
As discussed supra the Complainant is entitled for relief claimed.
O R D E R
The Complaint is allowed on contest with the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to refunds Rs. 23/-(Rupees twenty three)only to the Complainant along with Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards litigation expences to the Complainant within one month of this order.
Failing which the entire order will carry 12% intrest P.A. till realization.
Order pronounced in open court on this 14th day of Aug 2023.
Supply free copies to the parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree/-
( Smt. Jigeesha Mishra) (Smt. Anju Agarwal)
Dt.14/08/2023 Dt.14/08/2023
P r e s i d e n t M e m b e r (w)
