Orissa

Cuttak

CC/121/2019

Urmila Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor,Mio Amore - Opp.Party(s)

B K Sinha & associates

23 Feb 2023

ORDER

 

 

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.121/2019

 

Urmila Sahoo,

Pl No -1136,MahanadiVihar,

Post-Nayabazaar,Cuttack,Odisha.                                                        ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.    Propriertor,

           Mio Amore,

           Retail Shop-Mahanadi Vihar,Cuttack,

   GSTN ID21AGIPP2266P3ZZ,Odisha.

 

2.     Managing Director,

Mio Amore, Head Office,

Kasba Industrial Estate,Sector-1,

E M Bypass,East Kolkata township,

Kolkata-700107( Behind Ruby Hospital).                                         ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     30.09.2019

Date of Order:    23.02.2023

 

For the complainant:           Mr. B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.              : Authorized representative..

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.           

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that on 22.4.19 she had purchased a Choco fantasy cake for a price of Rs.250/- from the O.Ps but she was charged another Rs.8/- towards the carry bag for bringing her purchased cake..  The said carry bag contained the advertisement of the O.P shop.  The complainant had made an application to the OPs to that effect but ultimately when no fruitful result yielded, she had to file this case before thisCommission seeking direction to the O.Psin order to admit their mistake and to pay a compensation to her to the tune of Rs.50,000/- towards the loss sustained by her mentally, physically and financially.

            The complainant had annexed copy of the cash receipt and photo copy of the carry bag together with copies of her representation as made in this context.

2.         The O.Pshave contested this case and through their written version have stated that as per the policy prevailing then, the carry bag was made optional for the convenience of the purchaser and there was no coercion, undue influence, illegal intent, unfair trade practice etc.  They urged through their written version that legally they were charging for the carry bag containing the company name and logo and according to them there is no legal stipulation that prohibits them from charging their customers for packaging material including carry bags of prescribed specifications with or without the company’s logo therein.  According to them, the printed logo and print name togetherwith other informations were necessary and required for managing their business operations.  As such, in toto they have justified their selling the carry bag and have urged for dismissal of the complaint petition.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed

by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

                        Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a Choco fantasy cake for a price of Rs.250/- on 22.4.19 vide  bill no.009723 of the O.P shopand had also paid a sum of Rs.8/- towards the carry bag.  Thus, in total the complainant had paid Rs.258/- at the O.P shop for purchasing the cake worth of Rs.250/- including Rs.8/- towards the charge of the carry bag.  Annexure-1 justifies the above purchase of the complainant as made by him.  On perusal of Annexure-2, it is noticed that the said carry bag carries the printed logo of the O.P company.  Moreso, the same is well admitted and is never disputed by the O.Ps.  Strangely, they had justified that it was necessary for their business and they had rightly sold the carry bag for the convenience of the customer/complainant by collecting a sum of Rs.8/-from her towards the price of the carry bag.  The carry bag being paid by the customer/complainant carrying the logo and name of the company of the O.Ps is undoubtedly anadvertisement made of the O.P company which is at the cost of the customer/complainant.  It is because, the customer/complainant here in this case has paid a price of Rs.8/- towards the cost of the carry bag through which the O.Ps had advertised their company.  This fact is also well admitted by the O.Ps and is rather not disputed at all. There was no option given to the complainant/customer while she purchased her cake from the shop of the O.Ps towards purchasing the carrybag worth of Rs 8/-. There was no such specification affixed in and around the said shop of the O.P specifying that the customer has to pay Rs 8/- per carry bag. On perusal of the provisions of the C.P.Act,29019, this Commission comes to a definite conclusion that infact, the O.Ps by doing so and by selling the carry bag of their shop which carries the logo and advertisement of their company is definitely a practice of unfair trade and nothing else which also clearly indicates the deficiency in their service here in this case,  since because they had charged Rs.8/- from the complainant/customer towards the carry bag.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.    Hence, it is so ordered;

                                    ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps.  Both the O.Ps who are found to be  jointly and severally liable here in this case are directed to stop such unfair trade practice immediately and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainanttowards the loss sustained by her mentally, physically and financially.   This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 23^nd day of February,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                     

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President

         

 

                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                Member