Haryana

Karnal

CC/362/2019

Amit Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 362 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.20.06.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 28.01.2020

 

Amit Sachdeva son of Shri Des Raj Sachdeva resident of House no.2276, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Mobile 9254122807.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Reliance Retail Limited, plot no.23, Kunjpura Road, opposite Vishal Mega Mart, Karnal, 132001, through its owner/Authorized person.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Complainant in person.

                   Shri Rahul Bali Advocate for opposite party.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant was in need of some cloths/dress and the complainant saw advertisements of the OP. As per the advertisements by OP, the branded clothes of OP company were shown as best of class and under the influence of same, the complainant visited the showroom of OP at Kunjpura Road Karnal and purchased some clothes on 21.04.2019. At the time of billing, the person over the cash/billing counter asked to whether shopping bag to carry the said purchased cloth is required to complainant. As the complainant was in need of same because it is quite awkward if the purchased clothes were carried by complainant in the hands and complainant asked for a bag to carry the purchased goods/clothes. The person over the counter told that if a bag is required, then complainant has to pay charges for it. The complainant purchased the shopping bag paying Rs.3/- for that. The complainant got surprised that the supplied purchased bag was printed with the logo of the OP company i.e. Reliance Trends. Complainant resisted that if the OP company is charging for the bag than how can they supply a bag that contains advertisement of the company. The person over the counter showed his incapability to answer the genuine question of complainant and told it is policy of the company and he cannot help in this regard and for any further query, complainant must contact to company. After that complainant contacted the toll free number of the OP and complained about the advertized chargeable bag supplied to complainant. Complainant contacted with OP and resisted that if the bag contains advertisement of company, than how can company charge for same, but no satisfactory answer had been given. Then complainant sent an email to the OP and complained about same but OP failed to reply the same. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and no cause of action. On merit, it is pleaded that complaint is totally frivolous and has been filed to challenge the charging of Rs.3/- for a carry bag. It is further pleaded that the said charges were taken only after the consent of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the customers can bring their own carry bag to carry the shopped items after the billing of the items purchased by the customers. Otherwise also the OP is a Retail store and as such, it does not fall within the purview of ‘service’ as contemplated in section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Further, as per Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) rules, 2011 under the heading “Explicit Pricing of carry bags, no Carry Bag shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers and the concerned Municipal Authority shall determine the minimum price for 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. 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. It is further pleaded that OP is neither imposing upon nor compelling its customers to purchase the carry bags. It is further pleaded that there is no law as such which directs or binds any shop keeper to provide carry bags for free. It is also well established fact that the OP herein sell product at a very competitive price and also the said bag is sourced/purchased by the OP by paying price to the manufacturer of the said carry bag, hence the OP charges for the said carry bag only if the customer consents for the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 13.12.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Abhishek Pandey Ex.OW1/A and document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 09.01.2020.

5.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel of the OP and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased some clothes on 21.04.2019 from the OP. At the time of billing, the person at the cash/billing counter asked whether shopping bag to carry the said purchased cloth is required to complainant. As the complainant was in need of same, so he asked for a bag to carry the purchased goods/clothes. The person over the counter told that if a bag is required, then complainant has to pay charges for it. The complainant purchased the shopping bag by paying Rs.3/- for that. The complainant got surprised that the supplied purchased bag was printed with the logo of the OP company i.e. Reliance Trends. Complainant resisted that if the OP company is charging for the bag than how can they supply a bag that contains advertisement of the company. The person over the counter showed his incapability to answer the genuine question of complainant and told it is policy of the company and he cannot help in this regard and for any further query, complainant must contact to company. After that complainant contacted the toll free number of the OP and complained about the advertized chargeable bag supplied to complainant. Complainant contacted with OP and resisted that if the bag contains advertisement of company, than how can company charge for same, but no satisfactory answer had been given.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP, in brief, is that complaint is totally frivolous and complaint has been filed to challenge the charging of Rs.3/- for a carry bag. The said charges were taken only after the consent of the complainant.

8.             Admittedly, complainant purchased some clothes on 21.4.2019 on payment of Rs.1297/-, vide bill Ex.C1. OP has also charged Rs.3/- for a carry bag vide bill Ex.C2. As per the version of complainant OP has no right to charge the amount for carry bag and the said carry bag was purchased by the complainant under compelling circumstances.

9.             Learned counsel for OP argued that the OP is a retail store and as such it does not fall within the purview of the “service” as contemplated in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He further argued that as per the Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) rules, 2011 under the heading “Explicit Pricing of carry bags, no Carry Bag shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers and the concerned Municipal Authority shall determine the minimum price for 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.  It was further argued that  as per rule 15 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2016, published vide notification dated 18.03.2016, issued by Ministry of Environments and Forests, retailers 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?

10.            Further, it was next argued that by learned counsel for the OP that it is not obligated to provide a carry bag free of cost to the complainant to carry the goods purchased. There is no such legal obligation on the OP and the complainant are free to carry the goods so purchased in their own carry bag or in any manner that suits him best. It is further argued that on the amount collected through the sale of carry bags, the OP pays the requisite taxes to Government. Learned counsel of the OP relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Competition Commission of India case no.05 of 2015 case titled as Shri Kamble Sayabanna Kallappa versus M/s Lifestyle International Private Ltd. and in writ petition no.274 of 2012 with writ petition no.244 of 2012 decided on 14.11.2014 case titled as Consumer Education and Research Society Versus Municipal Commissioner of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.

11.            Pre-contra, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that Rule 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016 on which, reliance has been placed by the opposite party, has already been omitted vide Notification dated 27.03.2018. He also argued that it is nowhere displayed in the shop premises of opposite parties, either at the entry gate or in the showroom that the customers can carry the goods purchased from the opposite party in their own carry bags or they are allowed to bring their own carry bags inside the showroom. He further argued that Ex.OP1 has displayed by the OP at the gate of his showroom after filing the present complaint as well as after receiving the notice of the present complaint. Moreover, alleged Ex.OP1 does not bear any date, month and year. Learned counsel for complainant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as My Lifestyle International Pvt. Versus Pankaj Chandgothia on 18 March, 2019 in appeal no.24 of 2019, decided on 18.03.2019.

12.            As regards the first submission that the OP being a retail store does not fall within the purview of ‘service’ as contemplated in section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has purchased goods including the carry bag from the opposite party against consideration paid and as such, the complainant is undoubtedly consumers under section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the opposite party is a service provider and very much covered under the aforesaid definition of ‘service.’ The submission raised by the learned counsel for the OP stands rejected being untenable.

13.            Reliance placed by the OP on rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 and Rule 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016. As per Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rule 2011, no carry bags were to be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers but thereafter, in the year 2016, the aforesaid Rules were amended vide notification dated 18.03.2016 to be read as Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016. As per Rule 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016 was omitted vide subsequent notification dated 27.03.2018 and as such, the opposite party cannot take shelter of the said rule. Since, the mandate for retailers to charge for plastic carry bags has been omitted in March 2018, therefore, its contention that it could charge for carry bags is totally against law and has no legs to stand.

14.            In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, authorities relied upon by the complainant are applicable whereas the judgments relied upon by the OP are not applicable.

15.            We are of the considered view that charging for carry bags is totally against consumerism. It is nowhere mentioned in the plea of opposite party that it has displayed either in the shop premises or at the entry gate that the customers can bring their own carry bags to carry the goods purchased. We have seen that now-a-days, it has become general practice prevalent in the market that if a person who goes to the shop premises like the OP to buy some goods, he/she is not allowed entering the said shop premises with any carry bag by their security guard (s). Furthermore, the carry bag Ex.C1 shows that it bears the logo as well as name of the OP and no print rate is mentioned on it and the customers who are buying the same in fact publicizing the brand of the OP and thereby becomes as a brand ambassador. Thus, we are of the considered view that the charging for the carry bag by the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

16.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.3/- being wrongly charged for the carry bag to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.3300/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:28.01.2020

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member                         Member