Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 285.

                                                                   Instituted on     : 24.05.2023

                                                                   Decided on       : 20.11.2023.

Sandeep Kumar age 42 years, s/o Sh. Azad Singh, R/o InderVihar Colony, Rohtak, Haryana. 

                                                                                                                                                                             ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Red Tape Limited online outlet through the Manager/Proprietor, O/A Shop at Basement, ground floor & first Floor, near Raj theatre, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001.
2. Red tape head office through Manager/proprietor registered office plot no.8, Sector-90, Noida-201305 U.P

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.A.K.Rohilla Advocate complainant in person.

                   Opposite party exparte.

                                      ORDER

TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that on 13.03.2023, he purchased some items/clothes  for Rs.5725.80/-  from the opposite party No.1.  After making the payment through his credit card, he came to know that opposite party No.1 has charges Rs.15/- for the carry bag. Complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to make available the bag free of cost but the same was refused by the opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 also told that it was the policy of opposite party No.2 and they cannot do anything in it and the complainant had to pay for carry bag.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, complainant suffered a great mental agony and harassment. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite partiesmay kindly be directed to refund the cost  of carry bag i.e.Rs.15/- alongwith interest and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment andRs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.

2.                Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 received back with the report of refusal and notice issued to opposite party No.2 through registered post received back served through the track report submitted by the counsel for the complainant.  As such, opposite party No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.07.2023 of this Commission.  

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1  to Ex.C4and closed his evidence on dated 20.09.2023.

4.                We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                As per the copy of Tax invoice Ex.C1, opposite party had charged Rs.15/- from the complainant on account of carry bag. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, he came to know that the opposite party no.1 has charged Rs.15/- for carry bag when he made payment through his credit card. Copy of payment receipt is Ex.C1. It is further submitted that it is the prime duty of the opposite party to provide carry/shopping bag free of cost to the complainant and other customers. Hence the charging of alleged amount of carry bag from the complainant is illegal. On the other hand opposite parties did not appear despite service of notice through registered post and were proceeded against exparte, which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter. Hence all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties stands proved. Moreover, we have also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, in Revision petitions No. 975-388 of 2020 decided on 22.12.2020titled as “Big Bazaar Vs. Ashok Kumar &Ors.wherebyit is held that “No prior notice or information to consumer before he makes his choice of patronizing retail outlet, and before he makes his selection for purchase, imposing additional cost of carry bags at time of making payment, after selection has been made, forcing carry bags without disclosing their salient specifications at price as fixed by opposite party company putting consumer to embarrassment and harassment”. The alleged law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the opposite party has illegally charged Rs.15/- from the complainant for providing the carry bag and there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to refund Rs.15/-(Rupees fifteen only), to pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.1 shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.1015/- from the date of order till its realization to the complainant.

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

20.11.2023.                  

                                                ................................................

                                                Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          …………………………………

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.