DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                                                  Consumer Complaint No.224 of 27/06/2019

                                                                                                                Decided on: 21/11/2019

Jaspreet Singh S/o Gurcharan Singh R/o H. No.225, Dukhniwaran Colony, Sirhind Road, Patiala.

                                                                                                               ….Complainant

                                   Versus

Reliance Trendz c/o Reliance Retail Limited, Shop No.23-26, Lower Ground Floor, Opp. Kalidevi Mandir, Patiala.

                                                                                                                  ….Opposite party

                                   Complaint U/S 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

                                   Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                   Sh. B. S. Dhaliwal, Member

ARGUED BY:

                                    Sh. Jaspreet Singh complainant in person.

                                    Sh. Sanjay Bharaj Adv. counsel for the opposite party

ORDER

                                    B. S. Dhaliwal, MEMBER

                 The complainant Jaspreet Singh (here-in-after referred as complainant) has filed the complaint u/s 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (here-in-after referred as Act) against Reliance Trends (here-in-after referred as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated that the case of the complainant is that on 23/06/2019, the complainant went to purchase some cloths for himself and his family whereby he made the purchase for Rs.3551.02/- and when he went to the cash counter, the cash attendant asked him if he needs the carry bag to take the purchased items their in and the complainant told him it is quite obvious that he needs a carry bag to take the cloths at home. Then after paying the bill the complainant went back to his home and then there he noted that the cash attendant has charged Rs.7/- for the carry bag. The complainant immediately went back to the store and talked the attendant that they have charged for the carry bag illegally as there is nowhere written in the store that the complainant will be charged for the carry bag or the attendant told him about the charges of the carry bag. Moreover the carry bag was all printed with their brand name, so it was just an advertisement done by the company/OP through complainant.

3. It is contended that Manager did not listen to any grievance of the complainant and straight away refused to do any refund or any other cooperation. That the action of the OP in charging price for the carry bag from the complainant, not only amounts to deficiency in service but the said act also amounts to unfair trade practice.

4. In the sequel of these facts, the complainant has prayed for:-

a) To refund the amount of Rs.7/- to the complainant charged from the complainant for the carry bag.

b) To compensate complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party by an amount of Rs.50,000/-.

c) To pay an amount of Rs.22000/- as cost of litigation, harassment as well as damages.

5. Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections having denied all the averments, facts and allegations as stated in the complaint. It is stated that there is no cause of action arisen in favour of the complainant; the complaint is totally false, vague, frivolous and has been filed just to get wrongful gains and is also not maintainable against opposite party. Otherwise also the OP is a retail store and as such, it does not fall within the purview of 'service' as contemplated in section 2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act. As per Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) rules, 2011, under the heading “Explicit Pricing of carry bags, no carry bags shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers and the concerned Municipal Authority shall determine the minimum price for Carry Bags depending upon their quality and size, which covers their material and waste management costs in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize Plastic Waste ( Management and Handling) rules, have been specifically barred from making plastic bags available to customers free of cost and it is mandatory for retailers to charge for plastic carry bags.

Opposite party have placed information display board at several places in and out the Stores & especially at Billing Counter wherein the OP through the said information Display Board have requested out esteemed Customers to carry their own Carry Bags.

6. On merits the supply of carry bag and charging Rs.7/- are admitted. It is specifically mentioned that carry bag was given to the complainant at his instance and charging of Rs.7/- on this count was well within the knowledge of the complainant at the time of payment of bill. After denying all the other avernments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7. In evidence complainant has tendered his affidavit as Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C-1 original bill, Ex.C-2 photo of carry bag and closed his evidence.

8. Ld. Counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Rachit Bansal, Store Manager of OP along with documents Ex.OP-1 copy of guidelines displayed on notice board and closed the evidence.

9. We have heard the complainant and ld. Counsel for the Opposite party and have gone through the entire record of the case carefully. Parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. The complainant submitted that the material facts are not in dispute and relied upon the order passed in the Appeal titled as M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pankaj Chandgothia and another passed in the Consumer Complaint No.438 of 2011 decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, U.T. Chandigarh on 03/01/2019 decided on 18/03/2019 by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (U.T.) Chandigarh.

10. Ld. Counsel for the OP vehementaly contended that the carry bag was provided to the complainant with his consent. It is also contended that the OP is a retail store and as such does not fall within the purview of “Service” as enshrined U/s 2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act. Further reliance is made upon rule 10 and 15 of the Plastic Waste ( Management and Handling) and Rules 20/1 and as such the OP being retailer has the right to charge for carry bag and the said carry bag is sold to the complainant after receiving his consent. It is further contended that the OP has placed information display board at several places at their store especially at billing counter to the extent that customers should carry their own carry bags.

The ld. Counsel for the OP relied upon the order passed in First Appeal No.163 /2019 Radhakrishanan.R versus Big Bazar and others decided by the Hon'ble State Consumer Commission: Delhi on 07/08/2019.

11. We have heard the complainant as well ld. Counsel for the OP, gone through the record and given thoughtful consideration to their rival contentions.

12. OP has admitted that the fact that carry bag was given to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.7/- which fact is also corroborated from Invoice Ex.C-1. The perusal of Ex.C-2 (Photocopy of carry bag) reveals the printing of a Logo on the carry bag in question.

13. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant purchased certain articles from the opposite party -Shop and took them to the billing counter for making necessary payment. At the Counter, the Cashier handed over the said articles putting them into a carry bag when asked to provide the same by the complainant. Upon perusing the bill upon reaching home, it was noticed that the OP have charged Rs.7/- on account of providing carry bag and thereafter the OP refused to refund the charged amount inspite of explaining the factual and legal propositions. It was further stated that in the entire shop premises, it was nowhere mentioned that the opposite party would charge for a carry bag also. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, The instant complaint has been filed before this Forum.

14. The opposite party, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that after the ban of plastic bags by the Government, the opposite party purchased paper bags, which are much costlier than the plastic bags and started providing the same to its customers on payment basis. It was further stated that there was no legal obligation on the part of opposite party to provide any bag to carry purchased item for free of cost to its customers. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite party nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice.

15. The Counsel for the opposite party argued that the opposite party is a retail store and as such, it does not fall within the purview of ‘service’ as contemplated in Section 2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act. It was next argued that as per Rule 10 of The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, under the heading Explicit Pricing of carry bags, no carry bags shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers and the concerned Municipal Authority shall determine the minimum price for carry bags depending upon their quality and size, which covers their material and waste management costs in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation. It was further argued that as per Rule 15 of The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016, published vide notification dated 18.03.2016, issued by Ministry of Environments and Forests, retailers have been specifically barred from making plastic bags available to customers free of cost and it is mandatory for retailers to charge for plastic carry bags. It was further argued that the main objective and intent behind such a direction was to limit and discourage indiscriminate use of plastic bags which are hazardous to our environment. It was also argued that by charging for the paper bag, the OP was only doing so in order to discourage the use of disposable bags and lessen the strain on the environment. It was next argued that the sale of paper bags by the OP has a greater negative impact on the opposite party itself and rather than on any consumer.

16. On the other hand, complainant argued that Rule 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016, on which, reliance has been placed by the opposite party, has already been omitted vide Notification dated 27.03.2018. He also argued that it is nowhere displayed in the shop premises of the opposite party, either at the entry gate or in the showroom that the customers can carry the goods purchased from the opposite party in their own carry bags or they are allowed to bring their own carry bags inside the showroom.

17. As regards the first objection that the opposite party being a retail store does not fall within the purview of ‘service’ as contemplated in Section 2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act, it may be stated here that the complainant purchased goods including the paper carry bag from the opposite party against consideration paid and as such, the complainant is undoubtedly consumers under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the opposite party is a service provider and very much covered under the aforesaid definition of ‘service’. The objection raised stands rejected being not tenable. So far as reliance placed by the opposite party on Rule 10 of The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 and Rule 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016, published vide notification dated 18.03.2016, issued by Ministry of Environments and Forests is concerned, we would like to first extract the aforesaid Rule hereunder:-

“10. Explicit pricing of carry bags. – No carry bag shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers. The concerned municipal authority may by notification determine the minimum price for carry bags depending upon their quality and size which covers their material and waste management cost in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation.”

“15. Explicit pricing of carry bags.- (1) The shopkeepers and street vendors willing to provide plastic carry bags for dispensing any commodity shall register with local body. The local body shall, within a period of six months from the date of final publication of these rules in the Official Gazette of India notification of these rules, by notification or an order under their appropriate state statute or bye laws shall make provisions for such registration on payment of plastic waste management fee of minimum rupees forty eight thousand @ rupees four thousand per month. The concerned local body may prescribe higher plastic waste management fee, depending upon the sale capacity. The registered shop keepers shall display at prominent place that plastic carry bags are given on payment.”

18. It may be stated here that no doubt, as per Rule 10 of The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, no carry bags were to be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers but thereafter, in the year 2016, the aforesaid Rules were amended vide notification dated 18.03.2016 to be read as Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016. It is important to mention here that the aforesaid Rule 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016 was omitted vide subsequent Notification dated 27.03.2018 and as such, the opposite party cannot take shelter of the said rule. Since the mandate for retailers to charge for plastic carry bags has been omitted in March 2018, therefore, its contention that it could charge for paper carry bags is totally against law and has no legs to stand. With all concern, we must say that charging for paper carry bags is totally against consumerism. We have seen that in these days, it is general practice prevalent in the market that if a person who goes to the shop premises like the opposite party to buy some goods, he/she is not allowed to enter the said shop premises with any carry bag. The same are kept at the entry door by the security person standing at the door. In case, the security person standing at the entry allows to do so, he staples the same so that no other product is put in the said carry bag. A person who buys some articles/products from the shop premises like the opposite party is expected to be provided with free carry bag to carry those articles up to his/her car of destination or he/she should be allowed to bring his/her own carry bag inside the shop premises.

19. Not only above, the carry bags, which are sold by the opposite party bear its logo on both sides and the customer who is buying the same is in fact publicizing the brand of the opposite party and thereby becomes a brand ambassador. On the other hand, charging for the said paper carry bag by the opposite party amounted to unfair trade practice. It is noteworthy that said carry bag for which the Complainants had to shell out extra amount from their pocket, is a printed carry bag, 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 Complainants and other gullible consumers like them have certainly been taken for a ride by the Opposite Party for advertising their name. 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 paper bags is surely and certainly amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice.”

20. In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Opposite party as under:

a) To pay Rs.7/- as refund towards charging for carry bag.

b) To pay another sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation inclusive of costs for causing harassment, in convenience and mental agony including litigation expenses to the complainant.

c) OP is also burdened with Rs.5000/- as punitive measures which shall be deposited by him in the Army welfare Fund Battle Casualties as per the details of bank account given below:

Fund Name : Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties

Branch Name : Syndicate Bank

Branch Code : 9055

IFSC Code : SYNB0009055

Account No. : 90552010165915

21. OPs will comply with the aforesaid order within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copies of the order. The liability of the OPs No.1, 2 & 3 shall be joint and several.

22. The complaint could not be decided in the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

23. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned.

PRONOUNCED

DATED: 21/11/2019

                                                         B. S. DHALIWAL                        INDERJEET KAUR

                                                                    MEMBER                                        MEMBER