DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 23 of 2019.

 

Sri Abhishek Baidya,

S/O. Lt. Satyabrata Baidya,

C/O.Sri Sunil Das,

Bidya Sagar Chowmuhani,

Near Jogendra Nagar Bridhe,

P.S. East Agartala, P.O.-Jogendranagar,

West Tripura, Pin-799004…................................................................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Store Manager

“BIG BAZAR ” (Future retail Ltd.),

Rupeshi Cinema, M. L. Plaza,

Mantribari Road, 

P.O.Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala.  

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001

 

2. Manager (Customer Care),

“BIG BAZAR” (Future retail Ltd.),

Rupeshi Cinema, M. L. Plaza, 

Mantribari Road, 

P.O.Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala.  

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001.

 

3. The CEO,

“BIG BAZAR” (Future retail Ltd.),

2nd Floor, Knowledge House,

Jogeshwari, Near Majas Depot, Shyam Nagar,

Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Lin,

East, Mumbai-400060.

 

4. The Customer Care,

“BIG BAZAR” 

4th Floor, Tower C, 

247 Park, LBS Marg,

Vikhroli(West), Mumbai-400083................................................... Opposite parties.

 

     __________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.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Mridul Kanti Arya,

Advocate. 

 

For the O.Ps.  : Sri Suman Bhattacharya,

  Advocate.  

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :   27/ 08/2021.

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Abhishek Baidya, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.Ps.

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased some articles namely Diya Chaat plate set and Hot Wheel Die Cast (Kid's Toy) from “BIG BAZAR” Shopping Mall, Rupeshi Cinema, M.L. Plaza, Mantribari Road, Agartala on 21/04/2019 . Thereafter he went to the bill counter and paid total amount of Rs.874/- and thereafter the Complainant leave the shopping Mall but the Complainant suddenly noticed that the price of the hot wheel Die cast (Kid's Toy) is very high according to its size of Rs.574/-. So, the Complainant decided to return and exchange and said Hot Wheel Die Cast (Kid's Toy) with other items. Thereafter, the Complainant purchased other house hold articles in exchange of the said Hot Wheel Die Cast (Kid's Toy) for an amount of Rs.575/- as per the exchange rules of “BIG BAZAR”. When the Complainant again proceed to the bill counter for cash memo then the staff of the cash counter told the Complainant to pay more Rs.18/- for carry bag bearing the advertisement of Big Bazar. The Complainant had no intention to purchase the carry bag and told the counter staff that the Complainant will carry the items of his own for the purpose of packing of those purchased articles. But surprisingly the staff of the cash counter told him to pay extra Rs.18/- for carry bag which was not mentioned in the carry bag of “Big Bazar”. Thereafter, he made contact with the “Big Bazar” 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.82,000/-  as deficiency of service and as compensation for causing harassment, negligence, mental agony, travel fair and legal expenses  from the O.Ps. along with 9% interest till the recovery for the end of justice.  

 2. On the other hand O.Ps. contested the case by filling written statement. 

In the written statement the O.Ps. submitted para-wise reply to the complaint in seriatim. Mostly, O.Ps. 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. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series and M.O.-1. The Complainant was cross examined by the O.P. side. 

        On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Sri Amiya Kar, S/O. Lt. Manindra Kar, working for Manager of “Big Bazar” i.e. O.P. No.1 submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. The witness was not cross examined by the Complainant side as it is a summary trial.   

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.Ps. 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. submitted to dismiss the complaint as devoid of merit.       

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.18/- for a carry bag. From the exhibited documents i.e. the Cash Memo or Invoice, we find that the O.P. charged Rs.18/- for a carry bag. From the Examination-in-Chief submitted by one Sri Amiya Kar 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.  It is also stated that the staff of bill counter took the carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of this purchased articles without asking the Complainant. The Complainant in support of his complaint adduced examination-in-Chief on Affidavit and he has reiterated the alleged fact in his evidence. He further stated that he was forced to pay Rs.18/- 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. Relying upon the above judgment we are in the opinion that the O.Ps. are 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. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, we give a direction to the O.Ps. to refund the amount of Rs.18/- 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.10,018/-(Rs.7,000/- + Rs.3,000/- + Rs.18/-). 

              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