Punjab

SAS Nagar Mohali

CC/76/2022

Divya Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

SNNR Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Richa Sharma

26 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SCO 43, Phase 2, Mohali
 
Complaint Case No. CC/76/2022
( Date of Filing : 14 Feb 2022 )
 
1. Divya Sharma
D/o Mohan Lal Sharma, Permanent R/o Tehsil Thunag, Kandha, District Mandi, Himachal Pardesh presently residing ar R/o H.No. 146, Ph-6, Mohali.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. SNNR Pvt Ltd
Shop No- LG-02A, The North Country Mall, Mohali, Punjab through Its Manager/ Proprietor.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sanjiv Dutt Sharma PRESIDENT
  Gagandeep Gosal MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.
......for the Complainant
 
Shri Devinder Kumar, counsel for the OP.
......for the Opp. Party
Dated : 26 Oct 2022
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

 

 

(1)                                 Consumer Complaint No.1608 of 2020

                                                Date of institution:   10.09.2020

                                                Date of decision:      26.10.2022                                             
Rajinder Singh son of Gurdas Singh, resident of village Andheri, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali.

 

…….Complainant

Versus

 

SNNR Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.LG-02A, The North Country Mall (Now VR Punjab) Mohali, Punjab through its Incharge/ Manager/Proprietor.

                                                …..Opposite Party

 

 

(2)                                 Consumer Complaint No.2691 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:   16.12.2019

                                                Date of decision:      26.10.2022                                             
Ram Kumar son of Shri Ramesh Chand, resident of House No.3155-B, Sector 39-D, Chandigarh..

 

…….Complainant

Versus

 

SNNR Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.LG-02A, VR Punjab, Mohali Kharar Highway, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Incharge/ Managing Director/Manager

                                                …..Opposite Party

 

 

(3)                                    Consumer Complaint No.101 of 2022

                                                Date of institution:   22.02.2022

                                                Date of decision:      26.10.2022                                             
Divya Sharma daughter of Mohan Lal Sharma, permanent resident of Tehsil Thunag, Kandha, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, presently residing at H.No.146, Phase-6, Mohali.

 

…….Complainant

Versus

 

SNNR Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.LG-02A, The North Country Mall (Now VR Punjab) Mohali, Punjab through its Incharge/ Manager/Proprietor.

                                                …..Opposite Party

 

(4)                                    Consumer Complaint No.76  of 2022

                                                Date of institution:   22.02.2022

                                                Date of decision:      26.10.2022                                             
Divya Sharma daughter of Mohan Lal Sharma, permanent resident of Tehsil Thunag, Kandha, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, presently residing at H.No.146, Phase-6, Mohali.

 

…….Complainant

Versus

 

SNNR Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.LG-02A, The North Country Mall (Now VR Punjab) Mohali, Punjab through its Incharge/ Manager/Proprietor.

                                                …..Opposite Party

 

 

 

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President,

                Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member.

                                 

Present:    Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the complainant..

                Shri Devinder Kumar, counsel for the OP.

 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President,.

 

Order

 

 

               The present order of ours will dispose of the above mentioned complaints, which are clubbed together for disposal, since in the above mentioned complaints, the Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OP’ for short) is the same. The point in controversy is also the same and the cause of action has accrued to the complainants on different dates, but the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP is only pertaining to charging of money for “carry bags”, at the time of purchase of articles by the complainants.

 

                It is averred that the complainants visited the store of the OP on different dates and purchased different articles. It is alleged that after the purchase, when the complainants asked for the carry bag for carrying the purchased articles, they were asked to pay additional amount for the carry bags. It is also averred that the complainants objected to the dealing persons regarding charging for the carry bags, but were not given a satisfactory reply in this regard. It is also alleged by the complainants, that it was difficult for them to carry the purchased articles home without the carry bags. The complainants have termed the act of the OP as an extreme unfair trade practice.           

                Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainants have sought refund of the price of the carry bags. Further the complainants have also demanded compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses. The complaints of the CCs are duly signed. Further the same are also supported by their respective affidavits.

2.             In the reply, the OP has raised a number of preliminary objections on the ground that the complaints are false and vexatious and are bad in law. The story mentioned in the complaints is concocted and the complaints have been filed to extract money from the OP illegally. It is alleged that the charges for the carry bag were taken from the complainants after their consent. It is averred that the OP is a retail store and it does not fall within the purview of service as contemplated in Section 2 (42) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is averred that as per Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 under the heading ‘explicit pricing of carry bag, no carry bag shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers and the concerned municipal authority shall determine the minimum price of carry bags depending upon their quality and size which covers the material and waste management costs in order to encourage their reuse so as to minimize plastic waste generation.  It is further alleged that the main objective and intent of the legislation behind such a direction was limited to discourage indiscriminate use of plastic bags which are hazardous to the environment. It is further averred that the OP has displayed boards at the billing counter wherein the OP requested their customers to carry their own carry bags. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             The parties closed their respective evidence after submitting affidavits and documents. 

4.             We, have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.

5.             The point in controversy before us is whether the OP could charge an additional amount for the carry bag from the complainants at the time of purchase of articles by them, while preparing the bills and handing over the purchased articles.  We remember that there used to be an earlier practice prevailing in the market, that, as and when an article was sold by the shopkeeper, he used to provide a bag to the customer. We have noticed, that now there is a complete ban almost in the entire country to use the plastic bags. We feel, that the complainants were under the impression that as per the earlier practice/normal practice, it is the duty of the retail outlets to provide a carry bag. Now, the question before us is whether is it mandatory on the part of the OP to provide a prior notice or information to its respective consumers, that it will charge for the carry bag or that they should bring their own carry bags.  It is also proved that in all the cases the complainants were forced to accept the carry bag at the “price fixed” by the OP. As we have discussed above, the normal practice in retail outlets is to provide a carry bag to its customers, without any additional cost for the convenience of the consumers in carrying the purchased goods, from the outlet to their respective homes. 

6.             We feel, that carry bag was forced upon the complainants at the price as fixed by the OP for which the OP has no legal right to do so and this 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. Otherwise, we also feel, that this is a mal-practice prevailing in the market. We feel, that the consumers had the right to know, before they exercise their choice to patronize a particular retail outlet, before he/she makes selection of goods for the purchase, that an additional cost will be charged for the carry bags. We, also feel, that the consumers had the right to know the salient features and prices of the carry bags fixed by the OP and we also feel, that prior notice and information is also the right of the consumers, which gives them more options to choose a particular outlet for doing purchases. We feel, that such notice or information at the time of making payment even caused embarrassment and harassment to the complainants and burdened them with additional cost which definitely falls within the purview of deficiency in service and malpractice. Ld. Counsel for the OP has contended that Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.18376 of 2021 titled as Reliance Retail Limited Vs. Dharam Pal and Anr.  involving similar subject matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such the proceedings of these complaints should be adjourned. We have perused the order dated 12.05.2022 passed in the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that it will be open to the petitioners to bring to the notice of the Fora, the pendency of the present litigation. 

7.             The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a benevolent legislature enacted by the Govt. to provide speedy and substantial and efficacious justice to the parties.  The very purpose of this Act is to curb unfair trade practice, adopted by the traders, who make money by adopting such unfair means. We feel, that the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 will fail if such type of practice is allowed among traders and in the society.

8.             Accordingly, the present complaints are allowed. The OP is ordered to pay compensation to the respective CCs to the tune of Rs.500/- each (Rs. Five Hundred only), subject to the decision of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.18376 of 2021 titled as Reliance Retail Limited Vs. Dharam Pal and Anr.  pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties.   File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

October 26, 2022

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

 

                                                       I agree.

 

 

(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)

Member

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sanjiv Dutt Sharma]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Gagandeep Gosal]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.