DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
(1) Consumer Complaint No.798 of 2020
Date of institution: 20.03.2020
Kulwinder Singh son of Late Shri Charanjit Singh, resident of House No.86, Phase-6, Mohali.
…….Complainant
(2) Consumer Complaint No.509 of 2020
Date of institution: 10.02.2020
Sarabjit Kaur daughter of Late Shri Gurbachan Singh, resident of HE-337, Phase-1, Mohali.
…….Complainant
(3) Consumer Complaint No.457 of 2019
Date of institution: 24.03.2019
Sarabjit Kaur daughter of Late Shri Gurbachan Singh, resident of HE-337, Phase-1, Mohali.
…….Complainant
(4) Consumer Complaint No.797 of 2020
Date of institution: 20.03.2020
Harpreet Kaur daughter of Late Shri Gurbachan Singh, resident of HE-337, Phase-1, Mohali.
…….Complainant
(5) Consumer Complaint No.1244 of 2019
Date of institution: 23.07.2019
Mrs. Amrita Jolly wife of Shri Karan Jolly, resident of House No.47, Army Flats, Near Gurudwara, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh.
…….Complainant
(6) Consumer Complaint No.1432 of 2019
Date of institution: 19.08.2019
Amit Sharma son of Shri R.P. Sharma, resident of House No.250, Phase-2, Sector 55, Mohali-160055.
…….Complainant
(7) Consumer Complaint No.1246 of 2019
Date of institution: 23.07.2019
Mrs. Ujala Sharma wife of Shri Amit Sharma, resident of House No.250, Phase-2, Sector 55, Mohali-160055.
…….Complainant
(8) Consumer Complaint No.1234 of 2019
Date of institution: 18.07.2019
Sanjeevan Kumar Chaudhary resident of House No.644, Second Floor, Phase-VII, Mohali.
…….Complainant
(9) Consumer Complaint No.1233 of 2019
Date of institution: 18.07.2019
Chandrika daughter of Shri Vijay Sharma, resident of House No.5292-B, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh.
…….Complainant
(10) Consumer Complaint No.369 of 2020
Date of institution: 16.01.2020
Rajni Sharma wife of Shri Vineet Sharma, resident of Flat No.4602, Sector 68, Mohali (Punjab).
…….Complainant
Versus
Reliance Retail Limited, SCO 8, Phase-V, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Manager/Incharge/MD/Director.
…..Opposite Party
(11) Consumer Complaint No.1208 of 2019
Date of institution: 17.07.2019
Sarabjit Kaur daughter of Late Shri Gurbachan Singh, resident of HE-337, Phase-1, Mohali.
…….Complainant
(12) Consumer Complaint No.143 of 2020
Date of institution: 07.01.2020
Sarabjit Kaur daughter of Late Shri Gurbachan Singh, resident of Kothi No.86, Phase-6, Mohali.
…….Complainant
(13) Consumer Complaint No.2457 of 2019
Date of institution: 26.11.2019
Navdeep Kaur daughter of Shri Daljit Singh, resident of House No.2458, Phase-11, Mohali.
…….Complainant
(14) Consumer Complaint No.2610 of 2019
Date of institution: 09.12.2019
Navdeep Kaur daughter of Shri Daljit Singh, resident of House No.2458, Phase-11, Mohali
…….Complainant
(15) Consumer Complaint No.2456 of 2019
Date of institution: 26.11.2019
Daljit Singh son of Shri Jaswant Singh, resident of House No.2458, Phase-11, Mohali
…….Complainant
(16) Consumer Complaint No.687 of 2019
Date of institution: 09.05.2019
Veerpal Kaur daughter of Mithu Singh, resident of House No.86, Phase-6, Mohali.
…….Complainant
(17) Consumer Complaint No.2565 of 2019
Date of institution: 02.12.2019
Manjit Singh son of Jaswant Singh, resident of House No.2458, Phase-11, Mohali.
…….Complainant
(18) Consumer Complaint No.2559 of 2019
Date of institution: 02.12.2019
Vishavjit Singh son of Shri Kulwinder Singh, resident of House No.86, Phase-6, Mohali through Guardian, Kulwinder Singh son of Charanjit Singh.
…….Complainant
(19) Consumer Complaint No.2558 of 2019
Date of institution: 02.12.2019
Ramandeep Kaur wife of Shri Daljit Singh, resident of House No.2458, Phase-11, Mohali
…….Complainant
(20) Consumer Complaint No.2515 of 2019
Date of institution: 28.11.2019
Ramandeep Kaur wife of Shri Daljit Singh, resident of House No.2458, Phase-11, Mohali
…….Complainant
(21) Consumer Complaint No.2458 of 2019
Date of institution: 26.11.2019
Harwinder Kaur wife of Shri Manjit Singh, resident of House No.2458, Phase-11, Mohali
…….Complainant
(22) Consumer Complaint No.2636 of 2019
Date of institution: 10.12.2019
Nidhi son of Shri Vijay Singla, resident of House No.1815, Nirvana Society, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh.
…….Complainant
(23) Consumer Complaint No.378 of 2019
Date of institution: 15.03.2019
Gurneet Kaur wife of Shri Daljit Singh Chhabra, resident of House No.505, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.
…….Complainant
Versus
Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance Smart, Bestech Square Mall, Plot No.1, Industrial Focal Point, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-160063, through its Incharge/Managing Director/Manager
…..Opposite Party
(24) Consumer Complaint No.796 of 2020
Date of institution: 20.03.2020
Harmandeep Singh son of Santokh Singh, resident of # 360, United Society, Sector 68, Mohali.
…….Complainant
Versus
Reliance Marketing Sungumberg Mall, NH-21, Mohali Kharar Road, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Manager/Incharge/MD/ Director.
… Opposite Party
(25) Consumer Complaint No.816 of 2020
Date of institution: 10.06.2020
Balinder Singh son of Ranjit Singh, resident of House No.4106, Hamayunpur, Sirhind, Fatehgarh Sahib.
…….Complainant
Versus
Reliance Retail Ltd., SCO No.1-2-3-4-5-6, Prime 2 Shivalik Shopping Plaza, Upper & Lower Ground Floor, Landran Road, Sector 127, Kharar, SAS Nagar-140307 through its Incharge/Managing Director/ Director.
… Opposite Party
(26) Consumer Complaint No.1307 of 2019
Date of institution: 29.07.2019
Sandeep Yadav son of Luna Ram, Gulawala (115), Mahendragarh, Haryana- 123001.
…….Complainant
(27) Consumer Complaint No.1310 of 2019
Date of institution: 29.07.2019
Dipesh Sharma son of Shri Vijay Sharma, resident of House No.5292/B, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh.
…….Complainant
Versus
Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance Fresh, SCO 506/507/508, Sector 70, Mohali, Punjab 160071 through Proprietor/Manager/ Authorised Signatory.
…… Opposite Party.
Complaints under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President,
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member.
Present: Counsel for the parties.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaints under the Consumer Protection Act filed by various complainants (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCs’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’ for short). All the above mentioned complaints are taken up together since the OPs are same in all the cases and the subject matter/cause of action is also the same. The grievance of the CCs is also the same in all the complaints. Though the cause of action has arisen to the CCs on different dates, but we feel, that no prejudice is going to be caused to any party if these complaints are clubbed and decided with one order.
The CCs in their complaints have alleged that they visited the store/shop of the OPs in order to purchase some articles for their use, on different dates as mentioned in their respective complaints. It is further averred that the OPs while handing over the articles to the CCs, charged different amounts extra or in addition to for the carry bag/paper bag in which the CCs were supposed to carry their respective articles. The amount for the carry bag/paper bag was charged by the OPs in addition to the price of articles purchased by the CCs. It is further the allegation of the CCs, that the OPs from whom they had purchased the articles had no right to charge for the carry bag/paper bag and at the same time it was difficult for the CCs to carry the articles without putting the same in the carry bag out of the store/shop of the OPs to their respective homes.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CCs have sought refund of the respective amounts charged by the OPs for the carry bag/paper bag. Further the CCs have demanded compensation and litigation expenses. The complaints of the CC are duly signed and verified. Further the same are also supported by affidavit of the respective CCs.
2. In reply, the OPs have raised a number of objections on the ground that the complaints are not maintainable since no cause of action has accrued to the CCs. Further the OPs have termed the complaints as frivolous and false etc. It is further averred in the versions of the OPs that the charges for the carry bag/paper bag were taken only after seeking consent of the complainants and as such the complaints are filed with malafide intention and are not maintainable. It is further averred that otherwise also the OPs are retail stores and as such, it does not fall within the purview of ‘service’ as per Section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further averred that 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 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 is further averred that 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 the objective and intent of the Legislation behind such a direction to limit and discourage indiscriminate use of plastic bags which are hazardous to the environment. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaints of the CCs. The OPs have cited various judgments in the versions filed by them in some cases.
3. The CCs in support of their complaints have submitted their respective affidavits and documents. On the other hand the OPs have submitted affidavits of their respective authorized persons and also submitted documents.
4. We have heard the complainant, counsel for the complainants and counsel for the OPs and have gone through the file.
5. Admittedly the OPs have charged an extra amount from various complainants for carry bag/paper bag in which the CCs were to carry their “purchased articles” and had paid in addition to the price of their articles to the OPs. The point in controversy before us is whether the OPs could charge additional amount for the carry bag/paper bag from the CCs at the time of purchase of articles by the CCs. We feel, that it is very surprising that if someone purchases an article from a reputed store like the OPs, and moves out from the store, in such circumstances how could one carry the articles home without putting the same in the carry bag or paper bag and that too in open by holding the same in his/her hands. We feel, that it was incumbent upon the OPs to provide carry bag/paper bag free of charge to the CCs in order to carry their articles to their respective homes safely. We feel, the price of the carry bag is definitely a part and parcel of the sale from the money paid for the purchase of article. There are certain articles which normally a person would not like to carry in the open, which definitely requires a carry bag or such a bag from which the article is not visible. We feel, that such type of practice by not providing carry bag/paper bag to carry articles purchased from the OPs by various CCs, is definitely a malpractice adopted by the OPs. We feel, that such type of malpractice adopted by such trader should be curbed with strong hands. There is definitely unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs. In this regard we are equipped with the decision of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh in First Appeal No.321 of 2020 titled as Reliance Retail Limited and another Vs. Dharam Pal, decided on 31.03.2021.
6. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a benevolent legislature enacted by the Govt. to provide speedy and substantial and efficacious justice to the parties. The very purpose of this Act is to curb unfair trade practice, adopted by the traders, who make money by adopting such unfair means. We feel, that the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 will fail if such type of practice is allowed among traders and in the society.
7. It is also possible that the OPs must have collected thousands of rupees from various customers in such a manner. It is also possible that OPs must have continued this practice for years and collected a huge amount. In order to curb such malpractice, it is important to impose special cost on OPs so that correct message should go in the society and such traders will think several times before adopting this practice again.
8. Accordingly, the present complaints are allowed. It is ordered that the OPs will refund the different amounts to the respective CCs, charged from them towards paper bag/carry bag. The OPs are further ordered to pay compensation to the respective CCs to the tune of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five Hundred only) in each complaint. The OPs are further directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) in each complaint, in the Legal Aid Account of this Commission. This special cost is imposed on the OPs, so that in future they may refrain from adopting such type of malpractice. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order, failing which the CC will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation amount. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
November 15, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
