Date of filing:      15.07.2019

                                                                                                                                   Date of disposal:09.01.2023

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L.,                                        ....MEMBER-II

 

RBT/CC. No.107/2022

THIS MONDAY, THE 09th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

(CC.No.100/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)

 

Mr. A.Anand, S/o.Arumugam,

No.21, AD Block,

BSNL Quarters, Vysarpadi, Chennai 39.                                          ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

1.Reliance Trends,

   Reliance Retail Limited,

   Rep. by its Store Manager/Authorized Signatory,

   Door No.78 & 79, Madhavaram High Road,

   Peramber, Chennai 600 011.

 

2.Reliance Retail Limited,

    Rep. by its Chairman Mukesh Ambani,

    Registered Office at 3rd Floor,

    Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg,

    Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400 002.                                        .......Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                   : Mr.M.Santhakumar, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                            :   Mr.K.Ravikumar, Advocate.

                         

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.100/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.107/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 21.11.2022 in the presence of Mr.M.Santhakumar Advocate counsel for the complainant and Mr.K.Ravikumar Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties  and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in selling the cloth bag with their name and logo to the complainant at a cost of Rs.7/- along with a prayer to direct the 1st opposite party to repay Rs.7/- cost of the carry bag  and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- toward cost of the complaint and to direct the 2nd opposite party to provide free carry bag to all customers. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

It was the case of the complainant that he purchased two Netplay shirts at Rs.799/- each from the opposite party’s shop on 19.04.2019 assuring him that on purchase of two shirts he will be provided discount of Rs.300/- on those items.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1305/- on the purchased items.  When the complainant verified the bill he found that he was additionally charged Rs.7/- on the carry bag provided by the store to him. It was further submitted that the store keepers denied him to bring carry bag of his own inside the store for sake of security and other reason.  Hence, it becomes necessity and the duty of 1st opposite party to provide carry bag to the customers at free of cost on purchase of the items.  It is pertinent to point out that the carry bag was also shown in the bill provided by the 1st opposite party as another item being purchased by the complainant without his will and consent.  The complainant having no other option paid Rs.1305/- through his SBI Bank ATM card.  The carry bag was also endorsed with the logo, symbol and design of opposite party which is nothing but advertising their brand at the cost of the complainant.  It has to be construed as an unfair trade practice adopted by both opposite parties attempting to charge for carry bags on customer and availing free advertisement of themselves by making endorsement of the brand name on the carry bag.  It was further submitted that there was neither no notice board present near the cash counter specifying that charges will be applied on carry bag nor the cashier informed that carry bag will be charged in addition to the products purchased. Banning of plastic bags in the State of Tamil Nadu, does not grant any right upon the sellers to impose additional charges for carry bag which falls on the shoulders of the customers. Thus aggrieved the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs as mentioned below; 

 To direct the 1st opposite party to repay Rs.7/- cost of the carry bag  and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;

 To direct the 1st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- toward cost of the complaint;

 To direct the 2nd opposite party to provide free carry bag to all customers.

Crux of defence made by the opposite parties:-

The opposite parties filed version stating that all the allegations made in the complaint was denied as false, baseless and misconceived.  The opposite parties were engaged in the business of retail, selling consumer durables, Garments, dress materials, electronic goods and electronic household appliances of their own brands besides various brands under proper authentication etc.  The opposite parties did not insist anyone to purchase the cloth bag without the consent of the customer. It was left out at the decision of the customer to bring their own bags to carry the goods purchased at the shop take in a trolley/basket to the security area where the customer would keep their bags safely.  If the customer intend to purchase the cloth bag which will have the name of the shop they can purchase on payment of cost of the bag.  After informing the customer who consented to purchase the cloth bag, it was billed.  Had the complainant expressed his desire not to purchase the said cloth bag the opposite parties would not have charged in the bill, the shop bag which is termed in the complaint as carry bag is a saleable item like other articles kept in the selling store for sale. It is the customer’s pride to travel with the opposite parties cloth bag like some shoulder bags ‘fast track’, wild craft’ etc. No bags will be given at free of cost to the customers. In the present case as the complainant has failed to prove any loss or damage there could be no award for the relief claimed. The prayer for compensation is totally unrelated to the value of the goods and could not be substantiated in the facts as held by the Hon’ble National Commission. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in respect of the service. Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

The complainant had filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on their side.  On the side of opposite parties proof affidavit was filed but no document was filed on their side. 

Points for consideration:

Whether the act of the opposite party in selling the cloth bag with their name and logo to the complainant at a cost of Rs.7/- amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point:1

On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;

Purchase bill dated 19.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A1;

Purchase tags on the product was marked as Ex.A2;

Netplay shirts with price tag was marked as Ex.A3;

Carry bag (photo scanned copy) was marked as Ex.A4;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party dated 20.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A5;

Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A6;

Track consignment was marked as Ex.A7;

 Reply sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant was marked as Ex.A8;

 Both the complainant and the opposite parties submitted that their written arguments may be treated as oral arguments.  We perused the pleadings and material evidences produced by both parties. 

 The crux of the written arguments submitted by the complainant is that on his purchase of Rs.1305/-, Rs.7/- was charged towards cloth bag and that the cloth bag contains the logo, design and trademark of the opposite parties.  Further it is the case of the complainant that he was not permitted to take his own carry bag inside the store and as no other option he was compelled to buy the cloth bag.  It is the case of the complainant that the carry bag cannot be equated in equal parlance with customer durables, Garments, dress materials, electronic goods and electronic appliances.  Thus, relying upon the judgment rendered by NCDRC in the batch Revision Petition Nos.975/2020 to 988/2020, the complainant sought for the complaint to be allowed on the ground that the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

On the other hand the opposite parties admitted the sale of cloth bag for an amount of Rs.7/- to the complainant. However, it is alleged that they did not compel the complainant to purchase the carry bag and it is the choice of the complainant in purchasing the same.  They also equated the cloth bag with the carry bag like fast track and wild craft wherein the customers carried them in their shoulder with pride.  Further the opposite parties submitted that it is quite normal and regular that the goods purchased by the customers would be taken in trolley or basket to the security paint where the customers keep their bag and transfer the good purchased to their own bags and leave the trolley or basket at the security point.  It is admitted that no bags were provided to the customers free of cost.  Further with regard to the compensation the opposite parties contended that no damage or injury was proved by the complainant entitling him for compensation.  Thus the opposite parties submitted for the dismissal of the complaint.

On appreciation of the entire pleadings and material evidences we are of the view that the complaint is liable to be allowed for the following reasons;

As rightly pointed out by the complainant the opposite parties failed to prove that they have displayed prominently that the carry bag was sold for money and not provided free of cost, thus providing an option for the customers to either purchase or not the carry bag.

When it is specifically alleged by the complainant that he was prevented to carry his own bag to the store, the opposite parties failed to disprove the said allegation though it is contented that the customers are permitted to take their bags until the security point.  Therefore when the specific allegation is that the complainant was made to believe that the purchase of goods would be appropriately packed and delivered to him, but he was made to purchase the cloth bag and the goods are given in bag, it is the duty of the opposite parties that the goods purchased are packed appropriately making it convenient for the customers to carry the same conveniently without cloth bag.

 When it is specifically admitted by the opposite parties that they sold the cloth bag and that it contains their logo and trademark, it certainly amounts to unfair trade practice as they could not utilize the customers for advertising their product at their cost.

As the customer was made to purchase the carry bag at a cost, it is the right of the customers to know that there will be an additional cost for carry bag, the price of the carry bag and the specification of the carry bag.  When the customer is not made aware of such things it certainly amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

For the above reason we hold that the opposite parties had committed clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in charging the carry bag supplied to the complainant.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.

Point No.2:

With regard to the reliefs to be granted as we have held above that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice we direct the opposite parties to refund the cost of carry bag to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the mental agony caused to the complainant.  We also award Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the opposite party as litigation expenses to the complainant. 

In the result, the complaint is allowed against the opposite parties directing them; 

a) to refund a sum of Rs.7/- (Rupees seven only) cost of the carry bag to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b) to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;

c)  to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 09th day of January 2023.

 

    Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-

  MEMBER-II                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

 

Ex.A1 19.04.2019 Purchase Bill/Invoice. Xerox

Ex.A2 ............. Price tag on the product. Xerox

Ex.A3 ............. Netplay shirt with price tage. Xerox

Ex.A4 ............ Carry bag. Xerox

Ex.A5 20.04.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A6 ............. Acknowledgement card. Xerox

Ex.A7 ........... Track Consignment. Xerox

Ex.A8 ......... Reply notice issued by the 1st opposite party. Xerox

 

 

 

 

List of document filed by the Opposite parties:-

 

 

-Nil-

 

 

   Sd/-                                                                                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                    PRESIDENT