Tripura

West Tripura

CC/21/2021

Sri Anirban Lodh. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Store Manager, Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited. Pentaloons. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.M.K.Arya, Mr.P.Deb.

20 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 21 of 2021.

1. Sri Anirban Lodh,
S/O. Sri Arunangshu Lodh,
Bankumari, Jogendranagar,
Near Khudiram Para,
P.S.-East Agartala, P.O.-Jogendranagar,
Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799004….......................................................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

1. Store Manager,
    ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LTD.
    PENTALOONS,
    M. L. Plaza, Mantribari Road,
    P.O. Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala.  
    Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001........................................................ Opposite party.

                
       __________PRESENT__________

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        :     Sri Pritam Deb,
                             Advocate.
                
For the O.P.                  :     Sri Karnajit De,
                           Advocate.  

            JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  20/12 /2021  .
J U D G M E N T
              The Complainant Sri Anirban Lodh, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 complaining deficiency of service by the O.P.
        The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased some wearing apparel and some other items from “PANTALOONS” Shopping Mall, M.L. Plaza, Mantribari Road, Agartala on 11/03/2021. Thereafter he went to the bill counter for payment of the some items and the staff of the bill counter took carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of those purchased articles. But surprisingly the staff of the cash counter told him to pay extra Rs.7/- for carry bag. Thereafter, he made contact with the “PANTALOONS” authority to provide carry bag free of cost, for the purchased items /articles from their shop.  But no response as a result he had to suffer mental pressure, agony and faced harassment infront of the other customers which was unbearable to him.
    So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the conduct of the O.P.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming Rs.85,000/-  as deficiency of service and as compensation for causing harassment, negligence, mental agony and legal expenses  from the O.P. along with interest till the recovery for the end of justice.  
 

2.    On the other hand O.P. contested the case by filling written statement.
    In the written statement the O.P. submitted para-wise reply to the complaint in seriatim. Mostly, O.P. denied and disputed the averments made in the complaint.           
    In the written statement it is also stated that none of the customers are forced to buy any carry bag. It is a routine procedure to restrict every kind of bag outside the mall for various security measures and there is no compulsion upon customers regarding purchase of carry bag. It is submitted that complaint is not maintainable in its present form and nature.
        EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

3.        The Complainant examined himself as PW-I and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He has produced 02 documents i.e. one copy of Tax Invoice & one original carry bag by Firisti dated 19/03/2021 & 22/03/2021.  
        On behalf of the O.P. one witness namely Sri Tarak Das, S/O. Nitai Das, working for Assistant Manager of “PANTALOONS” and he has submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit.

4.            POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-
      On perusal of the pleadings of both parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the following points are to be determined:     
        (i). Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant?
      (ii). Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?                   

5.                  ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES :-        
                 We heard argument of both sides.
                 At the time of argument the Complainant submitted that there was a similar case and the judgment was passed by this Commission in C.C.-46/2019 on 25/09/2019 in favour of the Complainant. The O.P. preferred an appeal against the judgment before the Hon'ble State Commission and it was numbered as case No.A-1/2020 and the Hon'ble State Commission also affirmed the judgment of this District Commission. So the Complainant is entitled to get same treatment. The Complainant also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and by that judgment 14 Revision Petition were disposed of by common judgment dated 22/12/2020. The Hon'ble National Commission also held that charging of additional cost for carry bag to carry the goods purchased by the consumer will be treated of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.   
       On the other hand Learned Counsel of the O.P. submitted that customers will have to bring their carry bag for shopping purpose and there is no law under which O.P. is required to give a shopping bag free of cost to its customers. Learned Counsel of the O.P. further submitted that it is only when a customer gives his consent to purchase carry bags the billing staff charges for carry bag and without consent of the purchaser no charge is imposed. Learned Counsel further submitted that as per rule 10 of the Plastic Waste(Management and Handling) Rules 2011 no carry bag shall be made available free of cost by retailers to customers. So, in the instant case there is no irregularity for charging Rs.7-/ for carry bag. A written argument is also submitted by the Counsel.    

6.             DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     
            Both issues are taken up together for the convenience.     
        There is no dispute in respect of charging of Rs.7/- for a carry bag. From the exhibited documents i.e. the Tax Invoice, we find that the O.P. charged Rs.7/- for a carry bag. From the Examination-in-Chief submitted by one Sri Tarak Das as a OPW-I, we find that customers are not forced to buy any carry bag and they were asked to bring their own bag.  But Complainant is his examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that the staff of billing counter took the carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of this purchased articles without asking the Complainant. He further stated that he was forced to pay Rs.7/- extra for the carry bag.        
           We have perused the decision of the Hon'ble State Commission passed in case No.A-1 of 2020 (Big Bazaar Vs. Monojit Saha). The Hon'ble State Commission upheld the judgment passed by this Commission in a similar case where Rs.10/- was charged for a paper carry bag by the Big Bazaar shopping mall. In this regard, there is a judgment passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in a series of Appeal and also judgment passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a series of Revision Petition wherein it is settled that Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste(Management and Handling) Rule 2011 is applicable only in respect of Plastic Carry Bag. It is also settled that charging of any price for carry bag is illegal under the provision of Sub-section 5 of Section 36 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Relying upon the above judgments we are in the opinion that the O.P. is guilty of committing deficiency in service by charging extra amount for the carry bag and it also amounts to unfair trade practice.

7.            So, we hold that the Complainant has been able to prove his case U/S. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Accordingly, we give a direction to the O.P. to refund the amount of Rs.7/- which was charged for carry bag and also Rs.7,000/- as a compensation and Rs.3,000/- as a cost of litigation i.e. in total of Rs.10,007/-(Rs.7,000/- + Rs.3,000/- + Rs.7/-).
              The O.P. is directed to make the payment within 1 month from the date of judgment, if the payment is not made within 1 month then it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made in full.        
        Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the     parties     free of cost.
                           Announced.

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL
MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA    

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.