DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 44 of 2021.

 

1. Sri Saikat Saha,

S/O. Lt. Jagadish Chandra Saha,

Dhaleswar Road No.10,

P.O.-Dhaleswar, Pin-799007,

P.S.-East Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala….......................................................................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. Store Manager,

Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd.

Max Retail Division,

Street No.15 Sadar East,

Near Orient Chowmuhani,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.-West Tripura …............................................................................ 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 Sagar Banik,

  Sri Pritam Deb,

  Advocates. 

 

For the O.P.  : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

  Advocate. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  08/07/2022.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Saikat Saha, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  complaining against the O.P. for deficiency of service. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased on 10/04/2021 some household grocery goods from MAX Retail Division, Shopping mall, Orient Chowmuhani Agartala. But at the entrance gate does not allow the Complainant to enter with carry bags within their premises. Thereafter he went to the bill counter for payment of the goods, the staff of the bill counter took carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of those purchased articles without asking him in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state,so that its physical possession could be handed over to him. But surprisingly the staff of the cash counter told him to pay extra Rs.7/- for carry bag. Thereafter, he made contact with the Store Manager of the mall but from where also he did not get any proper response of extra charge for carry bag and he also enquired on what basis they charged for Rs.7/- for low quality carry bag and also asked them to provide him any circular regarding that issue but they did not pay any attention of his queries. He again went to the bill counter for rectification of bill and requested the staff of the cash counter to remove the extra charge of carry bag but surprisingly the staff of the cash counter loudly told him in front of the other customers of the mall that rectification of bill is not possible. As a result he had to suffer mental pressure, agony and faced harassment infront of the other customers which was unbearable to him. Hence, there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of O.P. namely “MAX Retail Division”, Shopping mall, Orient Chowmuhani, Agartala.

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/-(Rs.40,000/- + Rs.30,000/- + Rs.15,000/-)  as deficiency of service and as compensation for causing harassment, negligence and  mental agony  from the O.P.  

Hence this case. 

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 after the ban of use plastic bags by the Government, the O.P. purchased paper carry bags, which are much costlier than the normal plastic bags and started providing the same to its customers on payment basis, if they volunteer on their own volition. It is further submitted that there was no legal obligation on the O.P. to provide any free bag to carry purchased item to its customers. O.P. further stated that none of the customers are forced to buy any carry bag.  It is submitted that complaint is not maintainable in its present form and nature. 

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant has produced 01 document comprising 01 sheet under a Firisti dated 15/11/2021. The documents are namely the Original Cash Memo and the Carry bag. 

         On behalf of the O.P. one witness namely Sri Sayan Bose, S/O. Alok Kumar Bose, working as Manager, MAX Store at Agartala was examined.  O.P. has produced 02 documents comprising 19 sheets under a Firisti dated 15/11/2021.

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?           

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES :-

      Heard argument of both sides. 

              At the time of argument Learned Counsel Mr. Pritam Deb appearing on behalf of the Complainant submitted that on 10/04/2021 the Complainant went to MAX Retail Division(O.P.) shopping mall, Orient Chowmuhani Agartala for purchasing some wearing apparel and while entering inside into the mall, the staff of “MAX Retail Division” shopping mall at the entrance gate does not allow the Complainant to enter with carry bags within their premises. Thereafter the Complainant entered into the mall without any carry bags and purchased some goods and proceeds to the bill counter for payment of the goods. The staff of the bill counter takes paper carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of those purchased goods without asking the Complainant in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to Complainant. Surprisingly the staff of the cash counter told the Complainant to pay extra Rs.7/- for paper carry bag. Then the Complainant told the counter staff that he had no intention to purchase the carry bag. Then, Complainant was forced to pay Rs.7/- extra as a carry bag charged and it was mentioned in the cash memo or in the invoice. Mr. Pritam Deb further submits that the activities and behaviour of the staff of the O.P. was unbearable to the Complainant. He further submitted that the charging of Rs.7/- for a paper carry bag amounts to deficiency in service as well as it is an unfair trade practice and Complainant is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service of the O.P. He also relied upon decision passed by our the Hon'be State Commission in First Appeal No. A/32/2021 dated 17/05/2022 (Vishal Mega Mart Vs. Sri Mridul Kanti Arya). 

                On the other hand Learned Counsel Mr. Sampad Choudhury stated that O.P. is a fashion brand under the name and style of “Max” and has various retail outlets all over India. He submitted that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that there is ban of use of plastic bag by the Government, the O.P. purchased paper bag which are much costlier than the normal plastic bag and started providing the same to its customers on payment basis, if they volunteer on their own volition. It is further submitted that there was no legal obligation on the part of the O.P. to provide any bag free of cost to carry purchased item to its customers and he submitted that the compliant is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

Both issues are taken up together for the convenience.

          We have gone through the complaint as well as written statement and also evidence adduced from both sides.

          Complainant in his examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that he was not allowed with a carry bag to enter into the shopping mall of the O.P. and he was forced to make an extra payment of Rs.7/- for paper carry bag, though he had no intention to purchase the carry bag. He has submitted invoice which speaks that O.P. has charged Rs.7/- for paper carry bag. In his evidence Complainant further stated that for the act of staff of the shopping mall he had suffered mental pressure, agony and faced harassment in front of the other customers which are unbearable. 

              On the other hand one Sri Sayan Bose working as Manager submitted examination-in-chief on affidavit on behalf of the O.P. He stated that after the ban of use of plastic bag by the Government, the O.P. purchased paper bag, which are much costlier than the normal plastic bag and started providing the same to its customers on payment basis, if they volunteer on their own volition. It is further submitted that there was no legal obligation on the O.P. to provide any bag to carry free for the purchased item of its customers. 

7. From the evidence and un-exibited invoice and paper carry bag we find that there is MRP of Rs.7/- printed on the paper carry bag. As per provision of Sub-section-5 Section-36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 there is an obligation on the part of the seller that the seller will hand over the possession of the purchased goods to its customers into a deliverable State. So, under the provision of Section-36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 a seller can not charged for a paper carry bag which is used for the purpose of handing over the purchased goods in deliverable State, if the bag itself is not purchased as a goods or item.                

8.            In the instant case we find that the bag was sold as an item in contravention of sale of Goods Act, 1930. So, we are in the opinion that Complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. We give a direction to the O.P. to refund the amount of Rs.7/- which was charged for paper carry bag and also Rs.500/- as a compensation and Rs.500/- as a cost of litigation i.e. in total of Rs.1,007/-(Rs.500/- + Rs.500/- + 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.