BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.344 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 12.10.2021

      Date of Decision: 09.03.2022

Rohit Age about 36 years R/O H. No.NB-266, Lakshmi Pura, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

Shoppers Stop Ltd. Through its Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative/Cashier, Manpreet MBD NEOPOLIS Mall, BMC Chowk Beside Hotel Raddison, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Rohit Chopra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

OP exparte.

Order

Jaswant Singh (Member)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that the complainant purchased goods from the OP on 06.04.2021 vide bill no.20102 amounting to Rs.7005.01. That the OPs charged Rs.9.00/- for carry bag vide bill No.20102 dated 06.04.2021. The complainant requested the official of the OP that he cannot charge the amount for carry bag as the same is unfair trade practice, but the person namely Manpreet openly said they do charge for the carry bag as is an income source for them. The name of the carry bag has been mentioned as ‘Carry Bag-Carry Ba’ with the sku code 8830666 and when it was objected by the complainant, then the official of the OP openly told that this is system generated name of the carry bag. There is a great deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the OP and due to that the complainant has suffered a great mental tension, agony and harassment apart from humiliation and further due to negligence and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to refund Rs.9/- excessively charged and further OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.22,000/- as travel and legal fees alongwith interest.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, but despite service OP failed to appear and ultimately, the OP was proceeded against exparte.

3.                In order to prove his respective version, the counsel for the complainant produced on the file his respective evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

5.                After going through the contents of the complaint as well as bills, it reveals that the OP has charged Rs.9/- for carry bag and this factor is very well mentioned in the bill Ex.C-1 issued by OP to the complainant. We find there is no provision to charge for carry bag rather it is fundamental duty of the seller to provide a bag for carrying the goods to the consumer, without any charges, but in the instant case, the OP has committed grave negligence as well as unfair trade practice by charging an amount of Rs.9/- for carry bag and in support of this version, we take an opportunity to refer a pronouncement of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh, decided in Appeal No.98 of 2019, date of Institution 17.05.2019, decided on 22.07.2019, titled as “Bata India Limited Vs. Dinesh Parshad Raturi” and further referred another pronouncement of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh, decided in Appeal No.24 of 2019, date of Institution 01.02.2019, decided on 18.03.2019, titled as “M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Chandgothia etc.”  

6.                Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi recently has decided 14 Revision Petition Nos.975 to 988 of 2020 which have been disposed off vide common Order dated 22.12.2020 with the Revision Petition No. 975 of 2020 titled “Big Bazaar (Future Retail Limited) Versus Ashok Kumar” being taken as the lead–case. The Hon’ble National Commission in Para No.15 of the said Order has ordered as under:-

                   “The Opposite Party Co. through its Chief Executive is ordered under Section 39(1)(g) of the Act 2019 [corresponding     Section 14(1)(f) of the Act 1986] to forthwith discontinue its       unfair trade practice of arbitrarily and highhandedly imposing           additional cost of carry bags on the consumer at the time of    making payment, without prominent prior notice and information      before the consumer makes his choice of patronizing its retail       outlets and before the consumer makes his selection of goods for       purchase, as also without disclosing the salient specifications   and    price of the carry bags. The necessary notice/signs/          announcement/advertisement/warning should be in the place and     manner as may enable the consumer to make his informed choice         of whether or not to patronize its retail outlets, and whether or   not to make his selection of goods for purchase from its retail           outlets. The notice or information cannot be at the occasion of          making payment, after the consumer has exercised his choice to     patronize its retail outlet, and after he has made his selection of goods for purchase.”

7.                On the other hand, the OP did not bother to appear in the Commission and the OP was proceeded against exparte and ultimately, the allegations of the complainant remained un-rebutted and un-challenged because there is no rebuttal evidence on the file qua the allegation of the complainant. So, in the absence of any evidence, on the part of the OP, we have no option to accept the un-rebutted evidence of the complainant. Therefore the complainant is entitled for the refund of the excess amount charged by the OP alongwith compensation, interest and litigation expenses.     

8.                In view of the above detailed discussion and judgments of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh as well as Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to refund cost of carry bag Rs.9/- to the complainant and further OP is directed to pay compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna                Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj     

09.03.2022         Member                          Member           President