DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:  CC- 341 of 2021.

 

 

Smt. Rinku Shil,

W/O- Sri Sampad Choudhury,

Bholananda Palli, 

P.O. Kathal Bagan,

P.S. New Capital Complex, 

District- West Tripura- 799006. …..................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

Reliance Trends,

Reliance Retail Ltd.,

Sukantala Road, Agartala,

P.S.-West Agartala, 

Dist.- West Tripura-799001,

To be represented by the Store Manager. ...................... Opposite Party.

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

  Learned Advocate. 

 

For the O.P.  : Sri Malay Dutta,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 09.09.2022

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 complaining against the O.P. for deficiency of service. 

 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that on 12.04.2022 the Complainant went to reliance Trends Shopping Mall, Melarmath, Agartala for purchasing some wearing apparels. While entering inside into the shopping mall, staffs of O.P. at the gate did not allow the complainant to enter within their business premises with carry bag which the complainant brought with her. However, the complainant entered into the mall after leaving the carry bag. After purchasing those articles when proceeded to the cash counter for payment, the staffs of the cash counter took out carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of those articles without asking the complainant in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to the complainant. Then the staff of the cash counter told her to pay Rs.7/- extra as the charge of carry bag. Though she had no intention to purchase the carry bag she was forced to pay the price of the carry bag. The complainant contacted with the store manager, from there also did not get any proper response for the extra charge for the carry bag. Moreover, they told that its rule of the shopping mall that if any customer purchase items then they have to pay the cost of the carry bag. The complainant again went to the bill counter for rectification of the bill  and requested the staff of the cash counter to remove the extra charge of the carry bag  but surprisingly they loudly told the complainant in front of the other customer that rectification of bill is not possible and returned the articles and told to take back the money. As the wearing apparels are necessary for her she was forced to pay Rs.7/- for the same. The complainant stated that for the act of the O.P. shopping mall she has suffered mental pressure, agony and faced harassment in front of the other customer which was unbearable to her and beyond exception from such a reputed shopping mall. It is also stated by the complainant that the O.P. are selling cheap quality of carry bag in high rate violating the rules and regulations. The act of the O.P. for charging extra for the carry bag amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, complainant filed this case claiming compensation of Rs.80,007/- for causing harassment, mental agony etc. along with litigation cost.

 

2. After getting notice from this Commission the O.P. appeared and filed written reply denying the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint petition. In their written statement they have stated that complaint is not maintainable in its present form and nature and liable to be rejected. The O.P. is selling carry bags in a certain amount as if any of the customer slipped his/ her mind of bring their own bags. The complainant did not bring carry bag with her so the staffs of the O.P. informed the complainant that carry bags are available on chargeable basis before delivery of the articles  for a small consideration of Rs.7/-. So, allegation of the complainant is false. It is also stated by the O.P. that charging of carry bag by the O.P. shopping mall is a policy of the company and not an unfair trade practice and there is no violation of the rules and regulations. No force was applied to the customer for purchasing the carry bag, as it is optional to the customer for taking the carry bag or not. There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant. There is no negligence and latches on the part of the O.P. and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

  Complainant submitted examination in chief on affidavit as P.W.1. Complainant submitted 2 documents namely the invoice and the carry bag vide firisti dated 09.06.2022. The photocopy of the invoice is marked as Exhibit- 1 and the carry bag is marked as M.O.1. 

  No evidence is adduced on behalf of the O.P. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the Complaint and having regard to the evidence adduced by the Complainant, the following points are to be determined:

  (i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?           

5. ARGUMENT :-

  At the time of argument Learned counsel for the Complainant submitted that charging extra for the carry bag is most illegal under Sub-section 5 of Section 36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Complainant was forced to pay Rs.7/- extra for a carry bag and it was mentioned in the cash memo or in the invoice. Complainant further submits that the activities and behavior of the staff of the O.P. was unbearable to the Complainant. He further submitted that the acts of the O.P. amounts to deficiency in service as well as it is an unfair trade practice and Complainant is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 

  On the other hand, Learned Counsel of the O.P. stated that customers will have to bring their carry bag for shopping purpose and there is no law shown under which O.P. is required to give a shopping bag free of cost to its customers. Learned Counsel of the O.P. submitted to dismiss the complaint as devoid of merit.

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

  Both issues are taken up together for the convenience. We have perused the complaint, as well as written reply and the evidence adduced by the complainant. On perusal of the invoice it is found that there is no customer's name in the the invoice. Exhibit-1 Invoice does not support the complaint.  

 

7. In the instant case, the complainant has failed to prove her case. Hence, complaint is dismissed. No costs.

  Supply copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost.

 

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.