Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member
This case arises out of a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the Complainant in a nutshell is that on 15.04.19 he had purchased some garments from the shop of O.P. No.1. The Complainant also was given a carry bag with the impression ‘Trends, which is the trade name of the OP and charged Rs.7/- for that. But the Complainant raised objection for charging of Rs. 7/- for the bag. On 29.04.19 he had filed a complaint before the Consumer Affairs through email but the matter was not settled. On 30.04.19 again he had filed complaint before the O.Ps through email and thereafter on 07.05.19 O.P. sent an email stating that they had taken up his concern regarding issuance of carry bag. Even O.Ps did not receive any positive response and finally he was compelled to file this case praying for relief (s) as prayed for.
The O.Ps contested this case by filing a written version and also evidence on affidavit denying the allegation of the Complainant. However, their case is that after purchasing his garments from the O.P. No.1 at the time of billing, he asked for carry bag and O.P. No.1 as per their rules and notification issued a carry bag with charge of Rs.7/- and the Complainant paid the same. The item of carry bag like any other items which are sold at the store of the O.Ps is also having its unique product and the Complainant is required to purchase the bag separately. Purchase of carry bag is purely voluntary. So, O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the Complainant is entitled to get any relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the contesting parties filed their evidence on affidavit. O.P. No.2 also filed questionnaires which were replied to by the Complainant. The Complainant filed written argument. The parties also filed citation etc.
Point No. 1 & 2.
Evidently, the Complainant who is a bona-fide consumer of the O.P. purchased some garments from the shop of the O.P. through Debit Card for Rs.7688/- including “Trends Carry bag” of Rs.7/- vide tax invoice No.T81110119508244 and further purchased same dresses in cash of Rs.550/- on 15.04.19. So we have no hesitation to say that the Complainant is the consumer of the O.P.
The place of business of the O.P. No.1 is situated in this District and the value of the present complaint is far less than the prescribed limit. Thus, this Forum has every jurisdiction to try the present case.
Point No. 3 & 4.
The Points are taken up together for convenience of discussion and for the sake of brevity.
Admittedly, the Complainant is a bona fide customer/ consumer of the O.P.
It is the contention of the Complainant that purchasing some garments separately he had purchased a “Trends Carry bag” of Rs.7/-. At the time of purchasing the bill he raised in objection in respect of O.P. Trade name carry bag with logo of Reliance Company because he is not an advertisement agent of the O.Ps. On 29.04.19 Complainant filed a complaint before Consumer Affairs through email but the matter was not settled and on 30.04.19 he filed a complaint before the O.Ps through email and subsequently on 30.05.19 the Complainant approached this Forum.
The O.Ps in their W/V clearly denied all the allegations levelled by the Complainant and stated that after the purchase of some garments by the Complainant, O.Ps asked for carry bag and O.P. No.1 as per notification issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest Govt. of India on 4th February 2011, issued a carry bag with charge of Rs. 7/- and the Complainant paid the same. There is an allegation against the Complainant by the O.Ps that the item of carry bag like any other item which is sold at the store of the O.Ps. is also having its unique product code EAN No.8907594116853 and by his own choice Complainant chose to buy the same from the store of the present contesting O.Ps. There is another allegation against the Complainant by the O.Ps that he was well aware that garment products comes with primary pack only and not with a shop bag and therefore, the Complainant is required to purchase the shop bag separately.
Admittedly Rs.7/- was charged for the Carry Bag by the O.P. Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submits that the O.P. cannot force the customer to buy carry bag. Even if carry bag is sold for price the same cannot be for advertisement through the customer as the customer is not an advertisement agent for the O.P. Company.
Apparently, the argument as made by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant seems to be tenable. However, it is found that the O.P. all along maintained that the taking of carry bag is purely optional and not mandatory.
The Crux of the O.Ps argument is that like the other products the carry bag is also a product of the Company. So the Company may charge for it if any customer opted for carry bag.
The carry bag which has been produced reveals the name and Logo of the O.P. Company on it and thus, vindicates the claim of the O.P. that it is also a product of the Company. If that be so, charging a nominal price for the carry bag cannot amount to unfair trade practices or deficiency in service in any manner, whatsoever.
The decisions cited on behalf of the Complainant are found to be not inspiring enough considering the factual aspect of this case and also the reasons as observed herein above.
Both the points are decided against the Complainant.
Hence,
it is Ordered,
That the present case No. CC/70/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.Ps. There is no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
