DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 32 of 2021.

 

1. Sri Rettick Bakshi,

S/O. Lt. Bani Madhab Bakshi,

C/O.-Smt. Pratima Datta,

Ramnagar Road No.5,

P.O.-Ramnagar, Pin-799002,

P.S.-West Agartala,

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

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. Store Manager,

VOLSKA, 

Departmental Store:

T. G. Road, Between Ramnagar Road No.3 &4,

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 Mridul Kanti Arya,

  Advocate. 

 

For the O.P.  : Sri Arijit Bhowmik,

  Sri Ankan Tilak Paul,

  Advocates. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  18/02/2022.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Rettick Bakshi, 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 Volska, Shopping Mall, Agartala. 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 “VOLSKA, T. G. Road, Between Ramnagar Road No.3 & 4, 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.1,20,000/-(Rs.60,000/- + Rs.30,000/- + Rs.30,000/- )  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 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 a poster display above the cash counter displaying that “Bring Your own 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 produced the Original Cash Memo and the Original Carry bag which are marked as Exhibit-I and M.O.1. 

         On behalf of the O.P. one witness namely Sri Pallab Chakraborty, S/O. Late Bijan Chakraborty, resident of Vill- Pratapgarh was examined.  O.P. has produced 05 documents comprising 5 sheets under a Firisti dated 06/08/2021. The documents are namely Invoice dated 30/04/2021, Invoice dated 17/06/2021, Invoice dated 30/04/2021, Invoice dated 30/04/2021 & Carry Bag. 

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 

      At the time of argument the Complainant submitted that there was a similar case and the judgment passed by this Commission in C.C.-46/2019 and the judgment was delivered 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 own carry bag for shopping purpose and there is no law shown 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.                                

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

        Both issues are taken up together for the convenience.

          There is no dispute in respect of charging of Rs.5/- for a carry bag. From the exhibited documents i.e. the Cash Memo, we find that the O.P. charged Rs.5/- for a carry bag. From the Examination-in-Chief submitted by one Sri Pallab Chakraborty 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. In this regard, it is very much clear that in the complaint petition the Complainant stated that the shopping mall(O.P.) did not allow him to enter into their premises with a carry 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.5/- 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.P. is guilty of committing deficiency in service and charging extra amount for the carry bag and 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.5/- which was charged for carry bag and also Rs.2,000/- as a compensation and Rs.1,000/- as a cost of litigation i.e. in total of Rs.3,005/-(Rs.2,000/- + Rs.1,000/- + Rs.5/-). 

              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.