Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/5/2020

Monika Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance trends - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Saurabh Sharma

02 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   FATEHGARH SAHIB.

CC/05/2018

                                                                             Date of Institution: 03.02.2020

                                                                             Date of Decision:   02.09.2022

 

Monika Gupta aged about 40 years W/o Sh. Sumit Gupta, R/o H. No.229, Professor Colony, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil & Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib. …………....Complainant(s)                          

                                                     Versus

1. Reliance Trends, Upper Ground and first floor, opposite Gurpreet Hospital, Bassi Road, Sirhind, Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. Reliance Trends, through its head office 62/2, Richmond road, fourth Floor Banglore-560025, Karnataka.                              …………....Opposite Party(s)

Complaint under  Section 11 to 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986

Quorum:  Sh. Pushvinder Singh, President

                 Ms.Shivani Bhargava, Member

                 Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

 

Present:  Sh. Saurabh Sharma, Counsel for Complainant.

                Sh. D.S. Mangat, Counsel for OPs.

Order By

SHIVANI BHARGAVA, MEMBER

 

1.                   The complaint is filed by Ms. Monika Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the CC) against Reliance Trends(hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2.                 The brief facts of the case are that on 27.12.2019 the CC went to Reliance Trends, upper ground, 1^st floor, Sirhind, Fatehgarh Sahib to purchase sweatshirt and made the purchase of Rs.299/- but the cash attendant charged Rs.5/- for carry bag illegally. Total bill is Rs.304/- out of which Rs.299/- for sweatshirt and Rs.5 for carry bag. The CC approached the Manager of the store i.e. OP No.1 but he did not listen in this regard. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.5/- charged for carry bag and also to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment.                         
3.                      Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing version having raised preliminary objection that the OP No.1 is a store operated by M/s Reliance Retail Limited that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is totally false, vague and has been filed just to get wrongful gains. It is further submitted that Rs.5/- for carry bag were charged after the consent of the CC. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. It is submitted that the sale of the environment friendly carry bag is not compulsory and the said carry bag is sold only after receiving the consent of the customer. It is submitted that the OPs have placed information display board at the billing counter having requested the customers to bring their own carry bags. After denying all other averments made in the complaint the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4.                In support of the complaint the CC has tendered his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A) along with the document as Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.
5.               On the other hand the counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sandeep  Kumar, Store Manager of the OPs along with document, Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence.
6.               We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
7.               As reliance placed  by the OPs, rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 & rule 15 of the Plastic Waste (Management & Handling) Rules 2016 published vide notification dated 18.03.2016 issued  by Ministry of Environment and Forests is concerned, we would like to first extract the aforesaid rule hereunder:-

             “Rule 10 of 2011: 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 costs in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation.”

                “Rule 15 of 2016: 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 byelaws 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.)

       It may be stated here that no doubt as per rules 10 of the Plastic Waste(Management & 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 & Handling) Rules, 2016. It is important to mention here that the aforesaid rule 15 of the Plastic Waste(Management & Handling) Rules, 2016 was omitted vide subsequent notification dated 27.03.2018 and as such the OPs cannot take shelter of the said rule. Since the mandate for retailers to charge for plastic carry bags has been omitted in March, 2018, thereafter, its contention that it could charge for paper carry bags is totally against the law & has no legs to stand.

8.                     Admittedly the OPs have charged extra amount from various CCs for the carry bag/paper bag/jute bag in which the CCs were supposed to carry their purchased articles and had paid in addition to the price of their respective articles to the OPs. We have noticed that there is a complete ban almost in the entire country to use the plastic bags. We feel, that the consumers were under the impression that as per the earlier practice/normal practice in retail outlets in general, no additional cost would be charged for the carry bags. It is argued by counsel for the OPs that mostly the OPs have put signboards/announcements/advertisements/ warnings to the consumers to exercise their choice and make their purchases from the outlet of the OPs and that additional cost will be charged in case they opt for the carry bag/paper bag/jute bag. We have noticed that the CCs were forced to accept the carry bags of undisclosed specifications at the price fixed by the OPs, We have seen that the normal practice in retail outlets is to provide carry bag without any additional cost for the convenience of the customers.
9.                We feel, that in all these cases by simply putting the Signboards or announcements outside the various retail shops of the OPs, will not absolve the liability of the OPs against the CCs. We feel that carry bags were forced on the CCs at the prices as fixed by the OPs and charging extra for carry bags is definitely an unfair trade practice. We feel that there is no prior information or intimation to the various consumers, before doing purchases that they will be charged for the carry bags. This is a mal practice prevailing in the market. We feel, that the CCs had the right to know before they exercise their choice to patronize a particular retail outlet, before he/she makes selection of goods for purchase that additional cost will be charged for the carry bags. The CCs had the right to know the salient features and prices of the carry bags fixed by the OPs and we also feel that prior notice and information is also the right of the consumers which gives them more options to choose to a particular outlet for doing purchases.
10.                  We deem it appropriate to refer to a recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2020 SCC Online NCDRC 495 in Revision Petition 975 of 2020 pronounced in Big Bazar(Future Retails Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kuma, in a batch Revision Petitions having similar facts while dismissing the Revision Petition of OP by confirming the directions of the concurrent findings given by District Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission. District Consumer Commission ordered the OP to refund the cost of the carry bag and to pay compensation & litigation expenses.
11.                Keeping in view of the facts of the present case & extensive law discussed above OPs are liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the present complaint is hereby partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund Rs.5/- charged for carry bag to the CC and also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation. The compliance of this order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days on receipt of certified copy of this order. The copy of this order be provided to the CC and OPs free of cost. This complaint could not be decided within a specific period as provided by the statute due to rush of work and large pendency. File be indexed and consigned to record room as per rules.
12.  
13.     (Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                                   President

 

 

      (Manjit Singh Bhinder)

                                                                                                      Member

 

       

                                                                              (Shivani Bhargava)

   Member