Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/123

DHARAM PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE RETAIL LTD - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

05 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No.  123 of 06.11.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    05.03.2020

 

Dharam Pal son of Sh. Dasondhi Ram, resident of House No.4, Gali No.3, Piara Singh Colony, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Reliance Retail Limited, RLJS Tower Near GS Estate Palace, Haveli Bela Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

2. Manager Reliance Retail Limited, RLJS Tower Near GS Estate Palace, Haveli Bela Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

   ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Harish Kumar, Adv. counsel for complainant  

O.Ps. exparte 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1.   Dharam Pal son of Sh. Dasondhi Ram, resident of House No.4, Gali No.3, Piara Singh Colony, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, through his counsel has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.9/- the amount of carry bag charged from the complainant and pay for the advertisement material on the carry bag and to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost; any other relief which this Hon'ble Forum may deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.   

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on August/September 2019, the O.P. opened its Retail Store for all house hold and other item, scheme for minimum 5% discount on all the items and other gifts for purchasing for Rs.999/- or more. He, as per advertisement and assured by the O.P. purchased from the Store of the O.P. item and after payment requested for a carry bag. The employee of the O.P. supplied the carry bag charged Rs.4/- and he filed a complaint dated 13.9.2019 before learned this Court against unfair trade practice of O.Ps. The complainant again visited the store of the O.Ps. on 20.10.2019 and purchased items worth Rs.1298.75 and requested for a carry bag, the O.Ps. supplied carry bag having advertisement of O.Ps. and charged Rs.9/- for the carry bag, the other shops in the Bazar never charged for the carry bag and provide the same free of cost nor the carry bag have advertisement material. Hence, this complaint.

 3.   On being put to notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P., accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.02.2020. 

4.    On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered original bill Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.

5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.    Complainant counsel Sh. Harish Kumar, argued that in the month of August/Septembef 2019, the complainant visited the Reliance Retail Limited, situated at Bela Road, Rupnagar, where the scheme was of 5% discount along with other gifts for purchasing items of Rs.999/- or more. After purchase when payment was made of goods purchased then employee of the O.P. charged Rs.4 for carry bag. When again on 20.10.2019, the complainant purchased the item worth Rs.1298.75 paise and requested for carry bag then supplied the bag against payment of Rs.9/-. Learned counsel for the complainant further prayed that on the carry bag there is advertisement on behalf of Reliance and against the advertisement also charged Rs.9/- which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint with cost.

7.    Complainant is resident of District Rupnagar and O.P. Reliance Retail Limited has the Retail Shop at Bela Road, Rupnagar. Complainant placed on file Ex.C1 which is bill vide which made the payment of purchased item. Beside this complainant attached the carry bag of red colour against which he paid Rs.9/-. Under the given circumstances, this forum has the territorial jurisdiction and it is a consumer dispute which is to be tried.

8.    It is pertinent to mention that on filing the complaint in the month of November 2019. Notice was issued to the O.Ps. and notice was duly served but none appeared i.e. the O.Ps were proceeded against exparte. The complainant version as well as evidence is unrebutted.

9.    Under the law, as and when the complaint is contested by the O.Ps. then forum is to appreciate the evidence in the light of evidence adduced by both the parties. But when O.P. is absent or does not appear despite due notice then the forum is to appreciate evidence of the complainant in ex-parte way. In this case none appeared on behalf of O.Ps. i.e. why the evidence of the complainant is held to be un-rebutted.

10.  The question arises whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.ps. or not. Complainant counsel referred to the complaint then supported his claim by way of affidavit which is attached with the complaint then the bill dated 20.10.2019 and complainant gas also adduced evidence of carry bag and on the bag there is advertisement of the reliance. The complainant support of his claim relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh, in Appeal No.98 of 2019, titled as Bata India Limited Vs Dinesh Parshad Raturi, decided on 22.7.2019, in the above said law, the District Forum, as well as the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh, held that O.P. is duty bound to provide free carry bag to all the customers who purchase the item from their shop and charging price amounts to unfair trade practice. After detailed discussion, the law is laid down that O.P. charged the price qua the carry bag that was ordered to be returned back with costs.

11.  After appreciating the law referred above and after appreciating the facts of the complaint, this forum has come to the conclusion that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and is entitled to the claim.

12.  In the light of discussions made above, the complaint stands allowed with the directions to the O.Ps. to refund the amount of carry bag charged by the O.Ps. from the complainant pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation along with litigation expenses Rs.1000/- within the 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 

13. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                     (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.05.03.2020                            PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                          (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                    MEMBER