DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.686 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  09.05.2019                                              Date of decision   :  21.06.2021

Jaswinder Singh son of Lt. Shri Charanjit Singh, resident of Kothi-513, Phase-6, Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

Reliance Retail Ltd., Plot No.1, Industrial Area, Focal Point, Phase-9, Mohali through its Incharge/Managing Director/ Manager.

                                                      ……..Opposite Party  

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Shri Inderjit, Member

Present:    Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Sanjiv Pabbi, counsel for the OP.

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

Order

               The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP’ for short), wherein it is mentioned, that she has approached this Commission due to adoption of an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The allegation of the complainant is that he visited the store of the OP on 25.01.2019 and purchased some items. It is further mentioned in the complaint that OP charged “Rs.4/- extra” for the carry bag, in which the CC was supposed to carry the items in addition to the price of the items. It is the allegation of the CC that the OP, from whom he had purchased the items, had no right to charge for the carry bag. It was difficult for the CC to carry the items without any carry bag out of the shop to his house.

                Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the CC has sought the refund of Rs.4/- charged by the OP for the carry bag and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony. Further CC has demanded Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.  The CC has also sought direction to the OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- in Consumer Legal Aid Fund with further direction not to charge for carry bag in future. Complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.

2.             In reply the OP has raised a number of objections. It is alleged that the complaint is totally false, vague and has been filed just to get wrongful gains. No cause of action has arisen to the CC to file the complaint against the OP.  It is further averred that the charges for the carry bag were taken after consent of the CC. It is further averred that the OP is a retail store and as such, it does not fall within the purview of service as defined in 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 consumer. 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 environment.  The OP has placed information display board at several places at the store and especially at billing counter wherein the customers have been requested to carry their own carry bags. It is further averred that presently there is no law as such which directs or binds any shop keeper to provide free carry bags. Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

3.             The CC in support of his complaint submitted his affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and thereafter closed evidence. On the other hand OP submitted affidavit of Parveen Kumar.

4.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.

5.             After perusing the complaint and the version filed by the OP, it is proved on the file that the OP had charged an amount of Rs.4/- for carry bag in which the CC was to carry the articles purchased by him on 25.01.2019. The OP has admitted charging of Rs.4/- from the CC for the carry bag.

6.             Now the paramount question for consideration before us is whether the OP had the right to charge Rs.4/- extra for the carry bag in addition to the purchases done by the CC or not.  It is very surprising that if someone purchases an item from the store of the OP, how it is possible that without any carry bag one could carry the articles to his or her home by holding the same in his or her hands. We feel, that these companies have opened such huge stores but are not even providing environment free carry bags free of cost for carrying articles purchased by the customers daily.  We feel, that the carry bag is definitely a part and parcel of the sale and the OP had no legal or moral right to charge extra amount for the carry bag in addition to the price of articles. We feel, that this is definitely a malpractice adopted by such traders with some nefarious designs and to earn more and more profits.

7.             It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble National Commission had already directed the various business houses to discontinue this unfair trade practice of arbitrarily imposing additional cost of carry bags on the customers at the time of selling articles. It is pertinent to mention here that in the reply filed by the OP, instead of apologizing to the CC or showing any regret, the OP has tried to justify its wrong and illegal act. The question is whether these types of stores have any right to charge cost of carry bags at the time of making purchases or not.

8.             The intention of the Law Makers is clear from the preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, which is passed with a view to provide better protection to the consumers in India. Better protection in the sense means that what the consumer through the legislation could not achieve or failed to achieve in this regard, has to be achieved by this Act. Moreover, the present legislature is a benevolent legislation enacted to stop all kinds of malpractices prevailing in the society and in the business. We feel, that this is definitely a malpractice on the part of the OP who has only tried to justify its act on the pretext of saving the environment.

9.             In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is allowed. Accordingly, it is ordered that the OP will refund Rs.4/- to the CC within 30 days from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order alongwith consolidated amount of compensation for harassment and litigation cost to the CC to the tune of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand only). Further we are imposing punitive/exemplary cost to the tune of Rs.20,000/-  (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) on the OP in order to refrain the OP from committing this act again. This amount of punitive/exemplary cost will go to the Legal Aid Account of this
Commission.    Compliance of the aforesaid order be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order. Free certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

June 21, 2021

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

(Inderjit)

Member