Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/156

Arun Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Fresh Store - Opp.Party(s)

complaint in person

08 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:156 dated 22.03.2021.                                                         Date of decision: 08.02.2024.

 

Er. Arun Garg aged about 53 years son of Sh. Sham Lal Garg, resident of House No.40-41, Central Town, Near Keys Hotel, Pakhowal Road, Village Dad, P.O. Lalton Kalan, Ludhiana. 

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Reliance Fresh Store through its Owner/Occupier/Manager, Reliance Retail Limited, SCF 12-13-14, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana-141013.
2. Reliance Retail Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director,3^rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002.                                                                                                                                                                      …..Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 2, 35 & 36 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Er. Arun Garg in person.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Sahil Sharma, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the due to complete lockdown and curfew imposed by Government on 23.03.2020, all the shops and stores were closed despite grocery shops and stores for home delivery of household items without taking extra charges. On 31.03.2020, the complainant ordered 14 necessary household grocery items from OP1 on mobile phone, which were delivered at his house on next day vide bill dated 01.04.2020 amounting to Rs.1124/- in a carry bag having logo of OPs on both sides. After checking the details of billed items, the complainant found charging of Rs.6/- extra as carry bag charges. The complainant stated that on his objection regarding charging of carry bag charges without his approval, the delivery boy of OP1 told that no approval is needed for carry bag as the carry bag was necessary to carry the ordered items. The delivery boy further told that the charges for carry bag were charged as per policy of OP2 and refused to give delivery of items without paying charges for carry bag. As the complainant was in urgent need of those items so he took the delivery by paying amount of Rs.1124/- in cash without having no other option.

                   The complainant further stated that on 09.04.2020, he again placed an order for 19 necessary household grocery items to OP1 on mobile phone and the same were delivered to him on 11.04.2020 vide bill dated 11.04.2020 for Rs.951.50 in a carry bag having logo of OPs on both sides. Further after checking the detail of billed items, the complainant found that Rs.6/- has been charged extra for carry bag. According to the complainant, he again objected to charging of carry bag charges without his approval but again the delivery boy refused to give delivery of items without paying for carry bag. As such, the complainant had to pay Rs.951.50 for taking the delivery of necessary household items. The complainant claimed to have made complaint to manager of OP1 after the lockdown but to no effect.

                   The complainant further stated that on 21.09.2020, he purchased total 17 items for total sum of Rs.1213.62 from OP1 after visiting the store including 1 litre Desi Ghee packet, 1 Kg Tomato ketchup pouch etc. and he demanded carry bag to carry the items at t he time of billing and payment but he was asked to pay extra charges of Rs.12/- for 2 carry bags printed with logo of store on both sides. However, there was no such display about extra charging of carry bags at any place of store or billing counter of the store. The complainant further stated that he refused to pay extra charges for carry bags being unfair trade practice and as such, he suffered  difficulty and harassment in handling and carrying the said items without carry bags. The complainant made written complaint on 22.09.2020 through Email to customer care of OP2 and demanded compensation but no reply etc. was received. However, he received a phone call from an executive of OP2 who told that carry bag facility for its customers was being righty charged extra as per their policy and they are under no obligation to provide carry bags to its customers for carrying the purchased items. According to the complainant, extra charging of carry bag having logos of Ops printed on both sides without prior display is violation of consumer rights which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant has suffered mental pain and agony etc. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to provide free carry bag to all its customers to carry sold items and also to pay punitive damages of total Rs.4,50,000/- upon the OPs for all three instances along with litigation expenses etc.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objections assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability; lack of cause of action etc. The OPs stated that the complainant was/is well aware about the additional cost of carry bag and he purchased the carry bag knowingly and has filed this false complaint to get undue gains. It is the complainant who three times visited the store of OP1 deliberately having aware regarding additional cost of carry bag. The charges of Rs.6/- for carry bag were taken after consent of the complainant. According to the OPs, the customers can bring their own carry bag to carry the shopped items after the billing of purchased items. Further OP is a Retail Store which does not fall within purview of ‘Service’ as section 2(1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act. Further as per Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handing) rules, 2011 under the heading “Explicit Pricing of Carry Bags, no carry bags shall be made available free of costs by retailers to consumers and the concerned Municipal Authority shall determine the minimum price of carry bags depending upon their quality and size, which covers their material and waste management costs in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation. Further as per rule 15 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules have been specifically barred from making plastic bags available to customers free of cost and it is mandatory for retailers to charge for plastic carry bags. The main objective and intent of the Legislation behind such a direction was to limit and discourage indiscriminate use of plastic bags which are hazardous to our environment. The OPs further stated that in order to protect the environment at large and also to provide convenience to the visiting customers at their store the OPs have introduced the optional sale of carry bag. The sale of environment friendly carry bag is not compulsory and the said carry bag is being sold only after receiving consent of the customer. All such information is displayed at the entrance of store along with billing counter and other place in the store where the customers are requested to carry their own carry bags.

                   The OPs further stated that no such law binds a shopkeeper to provide carry bag for free. Further the goods have been delivered to the complainant as per provisions of Sales of Goods Act, 1930. The carry bag has been provided to the complainant after his consent and he is not liable for any compensation. 

                   On merits, the OPs reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The OPs have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint as well as affidavit Ex. CB of Ms. Aditi Garg. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C3 are the copies of photographs of carry bag, Ex. C2 is the copy of Tax Invoice dated 01.04.2020, Ex. C4 is the copy of Tax Invoice dated 11.04.2020, Ex. C5 is the copy of Tax Invoice dated 21.09.2020, Ex. C6 is the copy of Email dated 22.09.2020 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Vikas Kumar, Store Manager, Reliance Retail Ltd., SCF-12-14, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana and closed the evidence.                

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statements along with affidavit produced on record by both the parties.  

6.                On 01.04.2020 and 11.04.2020, the complainant placed online orders for purchase of groceries from OPs which were delivered at his door steps by the OPs as lockdown had been imposed due to COVID-19 pandemic situations and there were restrictions on the movement of people and opening of commercial establishment. In both these bills Ex. C2 amounting to Rs.1124/- and Ex. C4 amounting to Rs.951.50, an amount of Rs.6/- shown to have been charged as price of carry bag. The contentions of the complainant that his prior consent was not obtained is devoid of any substance or merit. In those situations when the complainant was placing his order, he supposed to be aware of the facts that grocery items have to be delivered at his door steps without claiming any delivery charges but without packaging of grocery in one carry bag, the delivery may not be feasible. It can be further seen that when on 01.04.2020, the complainant noticed the charging of Rs.6/- but he did not registered any written protest with the OPs and again after the passing of 10 days he placed the next order. Instead of recording any appreciation of officials of the OPs to provide grocery items in such difficult time, the complainant is raising an issue which is not justifiable and is untenable.

7.                On 21.09.2020, when  the complainant visited the store of the OPs for purchase of grocery items, two bills vide Ex. C5 of even date but at different time were generated. The demand of carry bag free of costs did not find the favour from the OPs and the complainant carried the grocery items in loose manner from the store. It is apparent that, firstly the complainant was fully aware of charging of price for carry bag owing to first incident in April 2020 and on second occasion, the officials of the store categorically made him aware that in case the grocery items are to be carried in a bag, he will have to purchase a carry bag. So in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of the officials of the OPs were justified and there was no adoption of unfair trade practice on their part. The OPs rendered efficient services depending upon the prevent conditions at that time.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.     

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)                      Member                                                President   

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.02.2024.

Gobind Ram.