BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 104 of 2019

Date of Institution: 8.2.2019

                                                          Date of Decision:   14.10.2019

Sukhpal Singh S/o Sh. Amrik Singh aged 43 years resident of Kothi No. 107, Guru Teg Bahadur Estate, Opposite SGRD University, Mehta Road, District Amritsar, Punjab

Complainant

Versus

Reliance Smart, Reliance Retail Limited, Unit No. LG-001, Upper Basement, Mall of Amritsar, G.T.Road, Amritsar through its Manager

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).

Present: For the  Complainant   : Sh.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate      

              For the Opposite Party         : Sh. Harpreet Singh,Advocate

Coram

Ms.Rachna Arora,  Presiding Member

Sh.Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member

Order dictated by:

Ms. Rachna Arora, Presiding Member

1.       Sukhpal Singh, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section  12 & 13  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  complainant purchased certain articles and took them for billing counter of the opposite party for making necessary payment. At the counter the cashier of the opposite party handed over the said articles, without putting them into a carry bag and when asked to provide the same, the complainant was told that he had to buy it for Rs. 9/- additionally, copy of bill is Ex.C-1. It is pertinent to mention here that in the entire shop premises, it was nowhere mentioned that the opposite party would charge for a carry bag. The carry bag for which the complainant had to pay additional amount is printed carry bag which has a prominent display of the advertisement of the opposite party and is apparently serving as an advertisement for the opposite party. The act of the opposite party to charge additionally for the carry bag from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)      Opposite party be directed to refund the amount additionally charged by the opposite party ;

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- alongwith adequate litigation expenses may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that there is no valid law which imposes a seller/dealer to give/provide carry bags free to its customers. The opposite party is one of the leading retailers of the country and providing commodities to the customers at large at very competitive price due to which the opposite party commands great respect amongst public at large. The complainant had purchased certain commodities from the store of the opposite party  and as already stated by the complainant the cashier initially billed for all the commodities brought at the cash counter but as the complainant asked for the carry bag, the cashier informed the complainant about its charge and billed the same in the invoice of the complainant only after taking complainant’s consent. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no compulsion to any customer visiting store to purchase the said carry bag. The customer is free to bring their own carry bag  after the billing of the products are complete. It is submitted that the opposite party already sells product at a very competitive price and the opposite party too purchases the said carry bag by paying certain price, accordingly, the opposite party charges the same from its customers only if the customer agrees to purchase the same. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed copy of bill Ex.C-1, printed carry bag Ex.C-2.

4.       On the other hand opposite party alongwith written version has filed affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Store Manager Ex.OP1.

5.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant purchased certain articles  from the opposite party and the opposite party charged Rs. 9/- additionally as price of carry bag, copy of bill is Ex.C-1.  It was submitted that in the entire shop premises, it was nowhere mentioned that the opposite party would charge for a carry bag. The carry bag for which the complainant had to pay additional amount is printed carry bag which has a prominent display of the advertisement of the opposite party and is apparently serving as an advertisement for the opposite party and the act of the opposite party for charging for the carry bag which also advertises for the opposite party , amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

6.       On the other hand the opposite party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the Ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that  there is no valid law which imposes a seller/dealer to give/provide carry bags free to its customers. The complainant had purchased certain commodities from the store of the opposite party  and the cashier initially billed for all the commodities brought at the cash counter but as the complainant asked for the carry bag, the cashier informed the complainant about its charge and billed the same in the invoice of the complainant only after taking complainant’s consent.  The opposite party has placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Competition Commission of India in case Sh. Kamble Sayabanna Kallappa Vs. Lifestyle International Pvt.Ltd. Further reliance has been placed upon the law laid down by the District  Consumer Forum (Central) ISBT Kashmere Gate Delhi in case Radhakrishanan . R Vs. Westside Karol Bagh & Anr. Decided on 28.1.2019.        Further reliance has been placed upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat  in Writ Petition No. 274 of 2012  decided on 14.11.2014 in case  Consumer Education and Research Society Thro Pritee Shah Vs. Municipal Commissioner.

7.       From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not denial the fact that the complainant has purchased certain articles  and in the bill the opposite party has charged Rs. 9/- additionally for carry bag.  In this regard the only plea of the opposite party is that there is no compulsion on the complainant to purchase carry bag and when complainant was asked for the carry bag and the cashier informed the complainant about its charge and if the customer agrees to purchase the same and only after taking complainant’s consent, the invoice/bill was made which included the charges of carry bag.  However, we are not impressed  with the same in as much as if the cashier informed the complainant about the purchase of carry bag before billing, the same amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as it would have been very odd and inconvenient to the complainant to carry the new articles purchased by him/her in hand throughout without a carry bag. In this backdrop charges of such things (paper bags) cannot be foisted upon the consumers and would amount to overcharging. Moreover the carry bag for which the complainant had to shell  out extra amount from their pocket is a printed carry bag on both sides which has a prominent display of the advertisement of the opposite party and is thus apparently serving as an advertisement for them, whenever the  said bag is carried by the consumer. In this manner the complainant and other gullible consumers like them have certainly been taken for a ride by the opposite party for advertising their name. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Pankaj Chandgothia & Ors. Vs. M/s Lifestyle International Pvt.Limited in Consumer Complaint No. 438 of 2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh. Same view has been taken in Dinesh Parshad Raturi Vs. Bata India Limited in Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 2019 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT Chandigarh.

8.       On the other hand opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove that they have affixed any notice in the store whereby  the customers were apprised to bring their own carry bags. As such by charging the additional amount for the carry bag from the complainant, the opposite party has indulged into unfair trade practice  thereby causing not only loss, mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant but also give rise to undesirable litigations and thereby wasting the precious time of this Forum.

9.       However, the law laid down by the opposite party does not help the opposite party as in the case Shri Kamble Sayabanna Kallappa Vs. Lifestyle International Private Ltd.  opposite party has taken plea that opposite parties were following the directions of the Notification by the Ministry of Environment and Forest whereby they have been instructed not to sell the purchase materials in plastic bags and charge extra in case a customer requires the same. But however, in the case in hand no such plea has been taken by the opposite party that they have charged the complainant as per directions of the notification by the Ministry of Environment and Forest.

10.     In view of the above discussion, it stands proved on record that  due to the highhandedness of the opposite party the complainant became the victim and felt the burnt, as a result the complainant has been left with no alternative except to knock the doors of this Forum, which further aggravated his pain and harassment. As such we deem it proper to penalize the opposite party for indulging in such activity, thereby causing not only loss, mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant but also giving rise to undesirable litigation and wasting the precious time of this Forum.

11.     Consequently , we allow the complaint with cost and the opposite party is penalized with cost of Rs. 10000/- to be deposited  in the Consumer Legal Aid Account. Opposite party is also directed to refund Rs. 9/- additionally charged from the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/-and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum.  Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

 Announced in Open Forum