BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.427 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 24.11.2020

      Date of Decision: 20.07.2022

Gautam Sehgal S/o Sh. Ajay Sehgal R/o 339, Chotti Baradari, Part-I, Near Medical College, Jalandhar, Punjab-144001, 99154-12163.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       SNNR Pvt. Ltd (Super 99) through its Manager, Shop No.LG-          02A, Shop No.LG-02A, NH 21, Mohali Kharar Road, VR Punjab     Mall, Sector 118, SAS Nagar Punjab, 160055.

2.       The Manager, SNNR Pvt. Ltd (Super 99) through its Manager,          Shop No.LG-02A, Shop No.LG-02A, NH 21, Mohali Kharar Road, VR Punjab Mall, Sector 118, SAS Nagar Punjab, 160055.

3.       The Managing Director, SNNR Pvt. Ltd (Super 99) Registered          Office:D-169, Okhla Phase-1, New Delhi-20.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Complainant in Person.

Sh. Harsh Bhatt, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 to 3.

Order

Jyotsna (Member)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased goods from the OPs on 09.09.2020 and the OPs charged Rs.10/- for carry bag/paper bag vide Invoice No.#110S-8904. The name of the carry bag has been mentioned as paper bag on the serial no.4 with the Bar Code SR0009294 and when objected by the complainant then the officials of OPs openly told that this is system generated name of the carry bags. There is great deficiency and negligence in services on the part of the OPs and due to which the complainant had suffered a great mental tension, agony and harassment apart from humiliation. The complainant has suffered great mental tension, agony and harassment and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and deliberate negligence i.e. for mental tension, harassment, humiliation in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the OPs. The complainant is guilty of misstatement of facts and concealment of material facts at the time of filing of the present complaint, as such, the complaint needs dismissal with special costs. The true facts are that the purchase of the paper bag is at the option of the buyer and never forced by the OPs to take the same. Moreover, the buyer/customer is at liberty to bring his own carry bag to carry the goods. The employees of the OPs always offered the option to the customer/buyer for the purchase of the carry bag and it is always upto the sweet will and desire of the customer/buyer to buy the same or not and such thing is never ever forcibly applied by the OPs. There is no such law for not charging the amount of the carry bag and the same is always at sale at the option of the buyer/customer. Moreover, the facts alleged by the complainant regarding system generated name of the carry bag is totally false and frivolous, as the same is always added in the invoice whenever demanded by the buyer/customer. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing the goods by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the name of the carry bag has been mentioned as paper bag on sr. no.4 with the Bar Code SR0009294, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person as well as learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by both the parties as well as case file very minutely.

6.                After going through the contents of the complaint as well as bills, it reveals that the OP has charged Rs.10/- 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.10/- for carry bag.

7.                On the other hand,          the OPs have argued that the purchase of the paper bag is at the option of the buyer and never ever forced by the OPs to take the same. Moreover, the buyer/customer is at liberty to bring his own carry bag to carry the goods. The employees of the OPs always offered the option to the customer/buyer for the purchase of the carry bag and it is always upto the sweet will and desire of the customer/buyer to buy the same or not. But the OPs have miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence in the shape of any rules/instructions authorizing it to levy charge additionally for the carry bag from the gullible Consumers. In this backdrop, charges of such things (carry bags) cannot be separately foisted upon the consumers and the same would amount to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Besides this, if the opposite party claims itself to be responsible and environmentally conscious, then they should have given the carry bags to the customers free of cost because in our considered view, the price of the carry bag has generally been included by them in the profit margins of the product(s). It was for gain of the opposite party. By employing unfair trade practice, the opposite party is minting lot of money from the innocent customers from all their stores situated across the country. 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 OPs have committed grave negligence as well as unfair trade practice by charging an amount of Rs.10/- 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.” 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.” 

8.                If we see the case of the complainant in the light of above judgments of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh and Hon’ble National Commission, then we can say that the complainant is entitled for the relief and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are 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     

20.07.2022         Member                          Member           President