Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/243

Anurag Prashar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

complaint in person

05 Mar 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 243 dated 13.10.2020.                                                       

                                                Date of decision: 05.03.2021. 

 

Anurag Prashar, aged about 42 years, son of Late Sh. Harish Prashar, resident of House No.89, Walia Colony, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Reliance Retail Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director, 3^rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002.
2. Reliance Fresh Store through its Owner/Occupier/Manager, Reliance Retail Limited, Village Rajpura, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana-141008.                                                                                    …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS. JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Anurag Prashar in person.

For OPs.                         :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that on 16.09.2020, the complainant purchased grocery items i.e. biscuits, Sooji, Rice bran oil etc. from the store of OP2 for a sum of Rs.328.50NP. The complainant requested for a carry bag to carry items purchased by him. The complainant was given carry bag having a logo of OPs on its both sides and was charged Rs4/- as cost of the bag. The complainant protested with the OP2 against charging for the carry bag, but he was told by the official of OP2 that the cost of the carry bag was being charged from every customer. It was not possible for the complainant to carry the purchased items without a carry bag. Therefore, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.4/- towards the cost of the carry bag. The charging of the carry bag is a clear violation of the consumer rights and also amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to provide free carry bag to the customers and be also made to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation.

2.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs, who were proceeded against exparte.

3.                In exparte evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA along with photocopy of carry bag as Ex. C1 and copy of bill Ex. C2 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have gone through the record and have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant.

5.                The exparte evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebutted on the file as the OPs have not chosen to contest the case and they did not appear despite service and were proceeded exparte. From the bill Ex. C2, it is evident that the OPs charged Rs.4/- towards the cost of the bag. The complainant has placed on record the photocopy Ex. C1 of the carry bag on which the name and logo of the OPs is printed.  The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.275 of 2020 reported in 2020 in SSC (NCDRC) 495 titled as  Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar has held that the consumer has a right to know before he exercises his choice to patronize a particular retail outlet, and before he makes his selection of goods for purchase, that additional cost will be charged for carry bags and also the right to know the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. It has further been held that prominent prior notice and information has necessarily to be there to enable the consumer to make his choice of whether or not to patronize the concerned outlet and the consumer is necessarily required to be informed of the additional cost for carry bags and of their salient specifications and price before he makes his selection of goods for purchase. It has been further held that it cannot be that a notice is displayed at the payment counter or that the consumer is informed at the time of making payment that additional cost will be charged for carry bags. Such notice or information at the time of making the payment not only causes embarrassment and harassment to the consumer and burdens him with additional cost, but also affects his unfettered right to make an informed choice of patronizing a particular outlet at the initial stage itself. It has further been held that arbitrarily and highhandedly deviating from its past practice, deviating from the normal, not giving adequate prominent prior notice or information to the consumer before he makes his choice of patronizing the retail outlet and before he makes his selection for purchase, imposing additional cost of carry bags at the time of making payment, after the selection has been made, forcing carry bags without disclosing their salient specifications at price as fixed by the OP company putting the consumer to embarrassment and harassment, burdening the consumer with additional cost, in such way and manner, is decidedly unfair and deceptive. 

6.                In the light of the law laid down in the cited case, it is abundantly clear that the consumer cannot be taken by surprise that he would be charged additional cost of the carry bag at the billing counter. In the instant case also, the complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs.4/- towards the costs of the bag after he had collected the goods for purchase, which could not be otherwise carried without a carry bag. It was not brought to the notice of the complainant by way of a prominent notice at the entrance or elsewhere in the store that he would have to pay the additional cost of the carry bag. Therefore, this amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

7.                Secondly, it is evident from Ex. C1 that the bag carried a logo and the name of the OP company, which proves that the OPs are selling the bags having their company logo and name and by doing this, they are using the consumers as tool of their advertisement, which also amounts to unfair trade practice.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed exparte with an order that the OPs shall pay back the amount of Rs.4/- to the complainant with interest @8% per annum from 16.09.2020 till the date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only)  as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jyotsna Tahatai)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.03.2021.

Gobind Ram.