BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

Consumer Complaint No.406/2019.

Date of instt.: 30.07.2019. 

                                                                         Date of Decision: 18.02.2020.

Raman Kumar aged about 30 years, son of Ashok Kumar, resident of House No. 270F Block, Sirsa Mobile No. 94664-50651.

                                                                             ……….Complainant.

                                                Versus

Reliance Trends Store through its proprietor or Manager, Near Axis Bank, Sangwan Chowk, Dabwali Road, Sirsa.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION  ACT, 1986.

Before:       SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT                              

                   MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.

Present:       Shri N.S. Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Kapil Garg, Advocates for opposite party.

ORDER

                   In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 18.6.2019, complainant purchased clothes and other items from the retail store of opposite party for a sum of Rs.3139.12 vide invoice dated 18.6.2019. That when he checked bill summary, he was in great shock as store had charged Rs.5/- for providing carry bag to the complainant. That complainant visited the store on the same day and inquired about unnecessary charges of Rs.5/- from complainant but the Manager/ Proprietor could not provide a satisfactory answer to the complainant and replied that they have instructions from their company not to provide carry bag free of cost to the consumer and so they have charged Rs.5/- for carry bag. It is further averred that as complainant had purchased clothes of Rs.3139.12, then it was in the ambit of store service to provide carry bag to the complainant. That concerned op had charged Rs.5/- from complainant illegally and it comes under the deficiency of service and he has been put to mental agony and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complaint is totally frivolous and has been filed to challenge the charging of Rs.5/- for a carry bag. It is submitted that said charges were taken only after the consent of the complainant, hence the complaint has been filed with malafide intention. It is further submitted that customers can bring their own carry bag to carry the shopped items after billing of the items purchased by the customer. 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 the Consumer Protection Act. Further, as per rule 10 of the Plastic Waster (Management and Handling) rules, 2011 under the heading “Explicit Pricing of carry bags, no carry bags shall be made available free of cost by retails 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 as to minimize plastic waste generation. It is further submitted that as per rule 15, 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. That the main objective and intent of the Legislation behind such a direction was to limit and discourage indiscriminate use of plastic bags which are hazardous to our environment. Hence, to protect the environment at large and also to provide convenience to the visiting customers at their store they have introduced the optional sale of carry bags. It is further submitted that it is clarified that sale of said environment friendly carry bags is not compulsory and said carry bag is sold only after receiving the consent of the customer. It is further submitted that to carry forward the intent of the legislation and also with the intention of contributing towards saving our beautiful planet for our future generations, the op has placed information display board at several places at their stores and especially at billing counter wherein the op through said information display board has requested their esteemed customers to carry their own carry bags. It is abundantly clear that op is neither imposing upon nor compelling its customers to purchase the carry bag. It is further submitted that presently there is no law as such which directs or blinds any shop keeper to provide carry bags for free. It is also well established fact that op sells product at a very competitive price and also the said bag is sourced/ purchased by op  by paying price to the manufacturer of the said carry bag, hence the op charges for the said carry bag only if the customer consents for the same. All other contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

3.                The parties then led their respective evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for parties.

5.                Learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that complainant had purchased goods worth Rs.3139.12 from op and op had charged Rs.5/- from complainant illegally as cost of the carry bag which clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of op and has relied upon judgment reported as CC No.64/2019 titled as Dinesh Parshad Raturi vs. Bata India Limited decided on 9.4.2019.

6.                On the other hand, learned counsel for op has contended that they have categorically mentioned outside their store that carry bag is not compulsory and carry bag is sold at the consent of the customer on their cost. The main object and intent of the legislation behind such a direction was to limit and discourage indiscriminate use of plastic bags which are hazardous to our environment and as such to protect the environment at large and also to provide convenience to the visiting customers at their store they have introduced the optional sale of carry bags.  The complaint of complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of op and has relied upon judgments of the District Consumer Forum (Central) ISBT Kashmere Gate Delhi in case titled as Radhakrishan. R vs. Westside, Karol Bagh & anr. complaint case No. 251/2018 decided on 28.1.2019, and of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Goa at Margao in case titled as Mr. Calvert Gonsalves vs. Air Plaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd.-III, complaint No.68/2019 decided on 7.1.2020 and judgment of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum/ Commission District Kangra at Dharamshala (HP) in case titled as Anil Sharma vs. Reliance Trends, CC No. 114/2018 decided on 3.1.2020.

7.                We have considered rival contentions of both the parties and have gone through the record as well as judgments relied upon by learned counsel for parties carefully.

8.                The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and bill Ex.C1. On the other hand, op has furnished affidavit of Sh. Arpan Srivastava Ex.RW1/A and copy of information Ex.R1.

9.                It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant had purchased clothes items from opposite party for a sum of Rs.3139.12. It is also proved on record that Rs.5/- has been charged by op as cost of the carry bag which is evident from bill Ex.C1. The perusal of evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has not placed on record any carry bag which was allegedly purchased nor he has placed on record any photograph of the carry bag. Moreover, he has not mentioned any fact in his complaint that said carry bag was having advertisement of the op or same was being used or sold by op as an instrument of their advertisement. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has conceded this fact that they have not placed on record carry bag which was purchased by complainant from op on payment of Rs.5/-. So under these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that carry bag which was advertising material of op was sold by op to the complainant at the cost of Rs.5/-. So it appears from the record that complaint of complainant does not appear to be maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, judgment relied upon by learned counsel for complainant is also not helpful to the case of complainant as facts of the present case are different from the facts of reported judgment.

10.              In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum.     Member                       President,

Dated:18.02.2020.                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                     Redressal Forum, Sirsa.