STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
TRIPURA: AGARTALA
CASE NO.A.32 OF 2021
1. Store Manager,
Vishal Mega Mart,
H.G.B. Road, Melarmath,
Opposite SBI, Agartala Branch,
P.S. West Tripura,
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799 001.
2. Manager,
Air Plaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.184, Platinum Tower,
5th Floor, Udyog Vihar,
Phase-I, Gurugram,
P.S. Udyog Vihar,
Haryana-122 016.
…………….Appellants
Vs.
Shri Mridul Kanti Arya
S/O Sri Bhagirath Ch. Arya,
C/O Indra Mohan Debbarma,
A.A. Road, Radha Madhav Sarani,
Opposite of Tarun Sangha Club,
P.S. East Agartala, P.O. Dhaleshwar,
Pin-799 007.
…………. Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
DR. CHHANDA BHATTACHARYYA
MR. KAMALENDU BIKASH DAS
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Rahman, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Saha, Advocate
Date of hearing and
delivery of judgment
& order : 17.05.2022
Whether fit for reporting : NO
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. S. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Vishal Mega Mart as well as Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent-complainant filed a complaint petition before the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala alleging, inter alia, that on 26.11.2019 he went to Vishal Mega Mart Shopping Mall, Agartala for purchasing some household articles and wearing apparels and after such purchase, while he proceeded to the bill counter for payment, then, the staff of the cash counter told him to pay Rs.14/- for carry bag bearing advertisement of Vishal Mega Mart. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that when he raised objection against such term of paying the cost of carry bag, then, the sales boy harassed him and tried to manhandle him. Ultimately, though he had no intention to purchase the carry bag at a cost of Rs.14/-, but, he was forced to purchase the bag and had to pay for it. The respondent-complainant approached the learned District Commission for redress alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants-Vishal Mega Mart.
3. Per contra, it is the plea of the appellants that they displayed sufficient information at the main gate of the shopping mall indicating the prices of the carry bags at par their sizes and the options thereof, meaning thereby, the customers at their own can use their bags or they can buy carry bags for carrying their goods and articles.
4. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the appellants had followed the guidelines as indicated in the judgment passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) vs. Sahil Dawar, decided on 22.12.2020.
5. In course of hearing, this Commission made a query to Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant whether the complainant made any such statement that he did not notice any display board before the entry gate showing the prices of different carry bags sizes and liberty of the consumer to carry their goods by their own carry bags. On perusal of the deposition of PW1 i.e. the complainant, it comes to light that he has not made such statements in his complaint.
6. However, from the statements made in para-7 of the complaint, it comes to fore that the complainant had asked the authorized person of the appellants to provide the circular issued for buying and charging Rs.14/- against the carry bag, but, the said authorized person did not produce such circular as asked by the complainant. It is categorically stated in the complaint that the sales boy informed the complainant that as a matter rule of the Vishal Mega Mart, a customer has to purchase the carry bag to carry their goods and articles.
7. Another important feature is that the appellants, Vishal Mega Mart had marketed its brand through the carry bags and we have seen the logo of the Vishal Mega Mart at Exbt.1 series. Such marketing of its own brand through the carry bags in the interest of its own business and that too at the cost of the customers undoubtedly amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of such establishments.
8. More so, in the complaint the complainant has clearly stated that he has requested the authorized person of the appellant to show him the circular under which the appellants here-in were charging the price of carry bags. We have further noticed that there is no indication of price in the carry bags.
9. In the above circumstances, we have no other alternative but to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
10. However, according to us, the compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) as awarded by learned District Commission appears to be maximum for the reason that the complainant has failed to substantiate that the appellants had not displayed notice or circular by other means indicating the prices of the bags. But, it is established that the appellants had printed and marketed it brand through the carry bags it sold to the respondent-complainant and for this reason, it would be proper to impose compensation of Rs.6,500/-(Rupees six thousand five hundred) to be payable to the complainant within a period of 30(thirty) days from today, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @7% per annum till realization.
11. With the aforesaid directions, the instant appeal stands allowed and thus disposed of.
