DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 88 of 2021.

 

1. Saptarshi Roy,

S/O. Sri Binoy Bhusan Roy,

Of Saratpalli College Road Extension,

Shibnagar, Agartala,

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

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

1. Store Manager,

Pantaloons, Aditya Birala Fashion,

And Retail Limited, M. L. Plaza,

Mantri Bari Road, Agartala,

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. 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Mrs. Piyali Chakraborty,

  Mrs. Shima Banik Deb,

  Mrs. Nipika Debbarma,

  Advocates. 

 

For the O.P.  : Sri Karnajit De,

  Advocate. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 07/09/2022.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Saptarshi Roy, 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 08/04/2021 some wearing apparel from “Pantaloons” Shopping mall, M.L. Plaza, 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.5/- 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.5/- 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 “Pantaloons”, Shopping mall, M.L. Plaza, 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.1,10,000/-(Rs.60,000/- + Rs.34,000/- + Rs.16,000/-)  as deficiency of service and as compensation for causing harassment, negligence and  mental agony  from the O.P.  

Hence this case. 

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. The purchase of carry bag is an option given to the customer and customers reserve their sole discretion to exercise the same. As a responsible business entity, the Company has made sincere efforts to reduce the use of carry bag since the same is detrimental to the environment. In case the customer wants to purchase the carry bag, the price of the same is first informed to the customer and only after his/her acceptance to buy the same, the same is billed to the customer. The charge of carry bags is therefore to be borne by the customers who are willing to purchase the same and the said legal transaction can not be termed as unfair trade practice under section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is submitted that complaint is not maintainable in its present form and nature.   

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

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 documents under a Firisti dated 07/09/2021. The documents are namely the Photocopy of Cash Memo. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1.          

          No evidence adduced by the O.P. side.   

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the complaint, written reply and having regard to the evidence adduced by the Complainant, 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?           

ARGUMENT OF THE COMPLAINANT SIDE :-

             At the time of argument Learned Advocate of the Complainant submitted that charging of Rs.5/- for a carry bag is most illegal under Sub-section 5 of Section 36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Then, Complainant was forced to pay Rs.5/- extra for a carry bag and it was mentioned in the cash memo.  Learned Advocate of the Complainant further submits that the activities and behaviour of the staff of the O.P. was unbearable to the Complainant. Learned Advocate of the Complainant further submitted that the charging of Rs.5/- for a 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. Learned Advocate of the Complainant relied upon a decision of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble State Commission in First Appeal No.A/32/2021 dated 17/05/2022 (Vishal Mega Mart Vs. Sri Mridul Kanti Arya).               

   DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

    Both issues are taken up together for convenience. 

      We have gone through the complaint, written reply and also evidence adduced from the side of the Complainant.

          On perusal of the complaint it is found that the crux of the allegation is that Complainant was compelled to purchase carry bag which is illegal. Complainant in support of the complaint adduced one invoice which is marked as Exhibit-1. Since it is proceeding burden lies upon the Complainant to prove that he was forced to purchase a carry bag on payment of extra. Exhibit-1 does not show the name of the Complainant as purchaser. Invoice also does not support that the Complainant actually purchased some goods from the shopping mall(O.P.) and Complainant made extra payment for the carry bag. 

        In the instant case invoice is the vital document. Since we did not find any name of the purchaser in the invoice, we hold that Complainant is not able to prove that he himself purchased the carry bag from the shopping mall of the O.P.   

7.       In view of the above discussion we are in the opinion that Complainant has failed to prove his case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.       

      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

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.