Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/516/2021

Shalini Munjial - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Hitanshu Munjial

17 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                   

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/516/2021
Date of Institution	:	9.8.2021
Date of Decision	:	17.2.2023

 

Shalini Munjial W/o Hitanshu Munjial R/o H. No.1143, First Floor, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.  

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance Trends Junior, Lower Ground floor, Elante mall, Plot No.178, Industrial Area, Phase I Chandigarh 160002 through its Chairman/Managing Director.
2. Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance trends junior, lower ground floor, Elante mall, plot No.178, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh 160002, through its Manager.

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                        

ARGUED BY		Sh. Hitanshu Munjial, counsel for complainant.
		Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, counsel for OPs.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

1. Briefly stated,   the complainant purchased seven article from the outlet of the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs)  and the OPs raised  invoice of Rs.3100/- for the same. It is alleged that when the complainant verified the bill carefully it came to his notice that the MRP of the articles is Rs.3093/-  and the OPs had also charged for paper  carry bag i.e. Rs.7/-. The complainant immediately raised the issue at the bill counter of the OPs but they did not listen the complainant and even did not refund the amount of Rs.7.00 chareged for the carry bag. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2. The OPs  in their reply stated that the charges were made in the invoice only after it was consented by the complainant. It is averred that  the information regarding carry bag is displayed right from the entry gate together with at billing counter. Moreover the customer are allowed to carry their own carry bags  but the complainant was given carry bag after her consent. It is averred that  even otherwise the OPs are not under obligation to provide the carry bag free as there is no law as such  which directs the OPs to provide the same free.  It is denied that there is any deficiency on the part of the Ops. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. On perusal of Annexures C-1 and C-2, It is observed that Rs.7/- has been charged by the OPs towards carry bag. The OPs have further contended 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 not impressed with the same, in as much as if the OPs 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. In our considered view, the price of the carry bag has generally been included by it in the profit margins of the product(s). It was for gain of the Opposite Party. By employing unfair trade practice, the Opposite Parties are minting lot of money from the gullible customers from all their stores situated across the country.
7.      Moreover, in identical set of circumstances, it has been held by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller. Here our view is bolstered from the judgment dated 18.05.2020 of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in F.A. No.238/2019– Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar, wherein it was decided as under:-

“It may be stated here that, once we have already held that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller, as such, the contention raised does not merit acceptance. Ever otherwise, as per the contention raised by Counsel for the appellant, on the one hand, purchase of carry bags is made optional & voluntary but at the same time, the consumer/customer is not allowed to enter the shop with their own carry bags containing some goods purchased from other shop premises. We cannot expect that for every single item/article intended to be purchased by a customer, he/she needs to carry separate carry bags. For e.g. if a customer wants to purchase, say about 15 in number, daily-use goods/articles like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad, soap, toothpaste, shaving cream, pen, pencil etc., from different shops, we cannot expect him/her to take 15 carry bags from home, for the same. Thus, by not allowing the customers to carry their own carry bags by the appellant in its premises, there was no option left with them to buy the carry bags alongwith the goods purchased, to carry the same from the shop-premises. We are shocked to note the kind of services provided by these big Malls/Showrooms. One cannot be expected to take the goods like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., purchased, in hands. By not allowing the customers to bring in the shop premises, their own carry bags, and thrusting its own carry bags against consideration, the appellant is deficient in providing service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. No case is made out to reverse the findings of the respective District Forum in each appeal.”

        The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the deficiency on the part of OPs is proved.

8.      In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

(i)         To refund to the Complainant the amount of Rs.7/- 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.7/- could only be caused to this extent.

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

9. This order be complied with by the Opposite Party within thirty 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.
10. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Sd/-

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member