Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1132/2019

Sh. Rahi Singhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Aug 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1132/2019
Date of Institution	:	24/12/2019
Date of Decision	:	17/08/2020

 

Rahi Singhal S/o Sh. Ram Mohan Gupta, Resident of H.No.1008, First Floor, Sector 12-A, Panchkula (Haryana).

 

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

Reliance Retail Limited, Elante Mall, Plot No. 178, Shop No. 247 & 248, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Near Tribune Chowk, Chandigarh – 160002.

…… Opposite Party

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

 

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant selected and purchased certain items/articles from the OP-Store on 01.12.2019 and took them to the billing counter for making necessary payment. At the time of payment, the Complainant was also charged Rs.5/- for a carry bag to carry the items (Annexure C-1). The Complainant resisted the charging for carry bag, but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party contested the Complaint and filed reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the charges of Rs.5/- for a carry bag were taken only after the consent of the Complainant.  Moreover, requisite information was also displayed in the Store of the Opposite Party. It has been pleaded that Opposite Party charges for the carry bag only if the customer consents for the same. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party.
6.         The factum of providing carry bag to the Complainant, on payment of additional price, is proved from Invoice/Bill dated 01.12.2019, copy of which accounts of Annexure C-1.
7.         Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party argued that there is no law which binds the Opposite Party to provide carry bag for free. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on Appeal No.737 of 2018 - Reliance Smart & Reliance Retail Ltd. Vs. D.B. Benu & Anr., decided by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala; CC/251/2018 - Radhakrishnan R. Vs. West Side, Karol Bagh, Delhi & Others and CC/252/2018 - Radhakrishnan R. Vs. Vishal Mega Mart, Karol Bagh, Delhi & Others, decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), ISBT Kashmere Gate Delhi, W.P.(PIL) No.274 of 2012 and WP (PIL) No.244 of 2012 in the matter of Consumer Education & Research Society Vs. Municipal Corporation, Ahmadabad, decided by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, Case No.05 of 2015 - Kamble Sayabanna Kallapa Vs. M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Limited, decided by Hon’ble Competition Commission and FA No.163 of 2019 titled as Radha Krishanan Vs. Big Bazar & Others, decided by the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi. However, with humble reverence and per material on record, the decisions relied on by the Opposite Party have no application to the facts and issues involved in the present case. 
8.         Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party has contended that suitable advertisements and posters are displayed at prominent locations in the OP-Store as it is committed to follow a responsible environmental policy.  However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, the Opposite Party has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence in the shape of any rules/ instructions authorizing it to levy charge additionally for the carry bag from the gullible Consumers. Moreover, if the Opposite Party is an environmental activist, it should have given the same to the complainant free of cost. Therefore, argument of the Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party that there is no law as such which directs or binds any shop keeper to provide carry bags for free is rejected being bereft of any force. It was surely for the gain of Opposite Party and by employing unfair trade practice, Opposite Party is minting lot of money from all customers.
9.         Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party has further argued that the carry bag was given to the Complainant only upon confirmation from him with respect to the purchase of the carry bag. However, we are also 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 for Complainant to carry the new articles in hand throughout without a carry bag. In this backdrop, charges of such things (carry bags) cannot be separately foisted upon the consumers and would amount to overcharging.
10.         It is noteworthy that in this manner, the Complainant and other gullible consumers like him has certainly been taken for a ride by the Opposite Party. Undoubtedly, the Opposite Party has several stores across the country and in the above said manner, made lot of money; thus, the act of Opposite Party by forcing the gullible consumers to pay additionally for the carry bags is surely and certainly amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice.
11.         The sequence of the events of the present case, clearly establishes the high headedness of the Opposite Party of which 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 & harassment.   
12.         In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed:-

(i)     To refund to the Complainant the amount of Rs.5/- wrongly charged for the carry bag;

(ii)    To pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony. Compensation imposed on lower side as mental agony of parting with Rs.5/- could only be caused to this extent.

(iii)   To pay Rs.500/- as litigation expenses.      

13.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above. 
14.         No punitive order is being passed against the Opposite Party due to the lock down/curfew imposed in the Chandigarh, due to which all the business activities in Chandigarh has come to a grinding halt. 
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

17^th August, 2020

                         Sd/- 

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”