IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Smti S. Bora & Sri P. Das
Members
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.15/2019
1.Sri Hemanta Barauah : Complainant
S/o Sri Pratap Baruah
Resident of Vill: Dekachuburi Chuburi
P.O & P.S: Tezpur
Dist:Sonitpur, Assam-784001
Vs.
1.‘Reliance Trends’ Through the Manager : Opp. party
Imperial Parijat Complex
Main Road,P.O: Tezpur
Dist:Sonitpur, Assam-784001
Appearance:
Complainant himself. : For the Complainant
None : For the Opp. party
Date of argument : 08/11/2019
Date of Judgment : 21/11/2019
J U D G M E N T
- The case, in brief, is that Complainant Sri Hemanta Baruah on 01-05-2019 visited the shop premises of the opp. party with a view to purchase clothes and on selection had purchased the same for consideration and bill/invoice of Rs.602/- issued by the Cashier. The Cashier of the opp. party handed over the clothes in a bag bearing the name of the opp. party “Reliance Trends”. As alleged by the Complainant, he had no intention to purchase the carry bag, cost of which is Rs.3/- which was included in the bill of Rs.602/-. It was the duty of the opp. party to provide carry bag as it was meant for the opp. party’s advertisement. Hence, it was unfair trade practice, Complainant asserted and therefore, the Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.3/- i.e, price of the bag charged and compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- total being Rs.5003/-.
- Opp. party contested the case by filing written version stating that purchase of carry bag is entirely optional and voluntary act by a consumer. It is further stated that “None of the cloth items comes with any package or with any Company bags from the manufacturer” It is stated that the Cashier at the billing counter always ask the customer
whether he has brought his own carry bag or he wish to purchase from the store for his convenience. If the customer wishes or choose to buy the carry bag, then, the bag is sold like any other merchandise available in the store as per requirement {Regarding size/capacity to carry} and it will be sold as separate item and is liable for billing. The answering opp. party denied the allegation made by the Complainant that he was forced to purchase carry bag at the store. It is further stated that the Complainant is silent about the quality of goods sold to establish a case of unfair trade practice. Thus, the answering opp. party by denying all the allegation made by the Complainant in the complaint, prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
- To substantiate his case, the Complainant examined himself as witness and submitted his evidence in chief on affidavit. Besides oral evidence, he also adduced documentary evidence by exhibiting the bill bearing No.951012119507766 as Ext-1. The opposite party, inspite of having sufficient opportunity, failed to cross-examine the Complainant and adduce any evidence on its behalf. In fact, the opposite party preferred to keep itself at bay and remain silent after filing written version. The Complainant submited written argument. We have gone through the materials on record before us including the written argument submitted by the Complainant. Also gone through the decision relied on by the larned advocate/ Complainant. Having made scrutiny of the materials, the following Points are fomulatred for decision.
- Whether there was unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party by selling carry bag to the consumer for putting items/goods purchased from the former ?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief under the complaint ?
DECISION ON THE POINTS WITH REASONS
4.Point no.(i): The only grievance of the Complainant against the opposite party is that on 01/05/2019 the Cashier of the opp. party handed over the items purchased in a carry bag with bill (Ext-1) for Rs.602/- including Rs.3/- as cost of the carry bag though the Complainant had no intention to purchase the carry bag. As against such grievance the specific version put forward by the opposite party is – “That after purchase of the cloth, when he arrived at the biling counter, he asked the cashier at the counter to provide one cary bag. At this point, the attending cashier told the complainant that as the cloth item he has purchased is not a packaged item as such it has not come up with respective company carry bag and if he choses to have one from the store, he has the option to buy the same as per requirement {Regarding size/capacity to carry} and it will be sold as separate item and is liable for billing. It is at this juncture, when the complainant/customer accepts the condition and wishes to buy the carry bag as per his requirement/size, then the attending cashier of the Store has made bill of the same@Rs.3.00”.Thus, to prove such version the burden lies on the opposite party. But the opposite party, as observed hereinbefore failed to turn up after filing of the written version. The written vesion under no circumstances can be treated as evidence. That apart, written version is not supported by any affidavit or document. If it is presumed, for argument sake for a moment that the written version is supported by an affidavit, then also, the Complainant has a right to cross-examine the deponent. In absence of any proof, such version put forward by the opp. party reproduced above, remained unproved. The opposite party failed
to assign any reason for non-examination of any witness, more particularly, the Cashier who could have easily come to the Forum. Why such very material witness is withheld ? Answer is not far away to find out, in view of unrebuttal evidence of the Complainant that, he had no intention to purchase the carry bag which cost Rs.3/-. Had the Cashier been examined he would not have supported the version of the opposite party. Under the facts of the case, discussed above, adverse inference can be drawn against the specific version of the opposite party.
5. Further, nowhere the opposite party pleaded that it has displayed any notice at some conspicuous place of the shop premises or entry gate that customers are to bring their own bags to carry the goods purchased. Rather the opposite party made some absurd statement vide para 4 of the written version. The opposite party stated amongst others at para 4 as follows :
“…………..It is obvious that whenever any Company sold its products which has its own unique product code like the carry bags herein, knows as “EAN NUMBER”, and the Customers, by their own choice, when chooses to “Buy” the same from the store, then definitely the customers will have to pay for it. It is to be mentioned herein that Reliance store does not put/include the price of carry bags along with the merchandise sold in the Store for the benefit of the customers, because otherwise the customers would have to pay more than the actual price of the merchandise they have purchased. It is only when the customers by their own volition chooses to purchase the carry bag like any other items, it is sold to them as seperate/independent item/merchandise, which is accordingly subjected to billing”.
6. Evidently the carry bag/bags which is/are sold to the Complainant or other customers bears/ bear the brand name of the opposite party “Reliance Trends” Advancing his argument the Complainant, who is an advocate by profession submitted that the consumers are used by the opposte party as an advertising agent by carrying the bag containing its logo or brandname. But at the same time, the consumers are forced to pay cost for such carry bags.The practice adopted by the opposite party comes within the purview of the definition of ‘Unfair Trade Practice’, the Complainant asserted. The Complainant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T Chandigarh in Appeal No.98 of 2019 (Bata Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Prasad Raturi) decided on 22/07/2019.
7. Generally, except big malls/show rooms like the opposite party, the other vendors used to provide carry bags without any logo or with logo to the consumers, for putting items/goods purchased, free of cost. Even petty cloth vendors used to provide carry bag for putting goods purchased from them. They charge nothing additionally for the bag.
- From the materials available on record, we have found that the opposite party, with intention to promote its sale, used to sell carry bag containing its brand name “Reliance Trends”. Without the knowledge of the consumer, such practice, in our considered opinion, comes within the definition of Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, it is held that the Complainant has proved his case and therefore, is entitled to receive back the price of the carry bag with compensation and cost of litigation.
- The Complainant has prayed for Rs.5000/- as compensation and litigation cost. Having regard to the entire discussion made above and as the Complainant is an advocate by profession, we deem it fit and proper to pass order for lump sum amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as compensation for harassment and cost. Further, the opposite party is directed not to realize cost for carry bag provided by it to the consumer for carrying goods/items purchased.
ORDER
- In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opp. party is directed to pay Rs.2000/-to the Complainant within 30(thirty) days of receipt of copy of the judgment and order. In default, interest @6% shall be levied on the awarded sum from the date of this order. Further, the opposite party is directed not to realize cost for carry bag provided by it to the consumer for carrying goods/items purchased.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 21st .day of November, 2019.
Dictated and corrected by: Pronounced and delivered by :
(SMT.A. DEVEE)
President (SMT A. DEVEE)
District Consumer Disputes Redressal President Forum,Sonitpur,Tezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- (Smti S. Bora ) (Sri P.Das)
Member(F) Member(Gen)
