DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 34 of 2019

 

 

Sri Rana Pratap Nath Bhaumik,

S/o. Sri Usha Ranjan Nath Bhaumik,

R/O.-Radhamadhav Sarani,

P.O.-Dhaleswar, Pin-799007, Agartala, 

District-West Tripura.….....................................................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Chairman, 

Bata India Limited, 

27B, camac Street, 1st Floor,

Kolkata-700016, 

West Bengal. 

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Bata Showroom, 

Located at 14-Hari Ganga Basak Road, 

P.O.-Agartala, Pin-799001,  

District-West Tripura..................................................................................... Opposite parties.

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI UMESH DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. Dr BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : In person. 

 

For the O.Ps. : Sri Paramatha Datta,

  Advocate. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 16/ 01 /2020

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Rana Pratap Nath Bhaumik, 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.

Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant on 17/04/2019 went to the Bata Showroom at H.G.B. Road, Agartala i.e. the Showroom of the O.P. No.2 and purchased two pairs of shoes on payment of Rs.499/- & Rs.299/- in total Rs.728/-. He was made to pay Rs.3/- for a paper bag. According to the Complainant he had no intention to purchase the paper bag. The Complainant was however given invoice vide No.CMO337190002601 dated 17/04/2019 against the purchase. The Complainant has stated in his complaint that the paper bag did not contain Maximum Retail Price(MRP) of Rs.3/- and that it got printed logo of “Bata” and also a message “Bata Surprisingly Stylish Barcelona Milan Singapore New Delhi Rome” . The Complainant has alleged that the O.Ps. have used the paper bag as a medium of advertisement at the cost of the Complainant by way of having printed such captions and this amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on their part. He further asserted that by  not printing the MRP of Rs.3/- on the paper bag the O.Ps. have also indulged in unfair trade practice. The Complainant also stated in his complaint that on 18/04/2019 he issued demand notice to the O.P. No.1, the Chairman, Bata India Ltd., 27B, Camac Street, 1st Floor, Kolkat,700016 with a copy to the O.P. No.2, the Manager, Bata Showroom, 14-Hari Ganga Basak Road, Agartala, 799001 calling upon the O.P. No.1 to refund him Rs.3/- and Rs.1 lac by way of compensation on account of the unfair trade practice indulged in by the O.P. Nos. 1&2. The Complainant alleged that  though the notice was duly served upon the O.P. No.1 but the O.P. No.1 did not take any action in response to the notice. 

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.Ps.,  the Complainant has filed the instant complaint before this Forum claiming Rs.1,00,003/- as compensation and price of the paper bag from the O.Ps.  

Hence this case.

 

 

2. In due course of time notices were duly sent to the O.Ps. from the Forum. 

  Both the O.Ps. in response to the notices sent from the Forum made appearance through their engaged Counsel. 

  The O.P. No.1, has duly authorised the O.P. No.2 to represent him on his behalf in connection with this case. Both the O.Ps. have submitted W.O. denying the contentions and claim of the Complainant. The O.Ps. have denied that the complainant was compelled to purchase paper bag. According to the O.Ps. they have been maintaining  the PR Guidelines for Bata India Team and have been running their business in whole over India as well as out side India with good name and fame without harassing any customer and that the Bata India Ltd. never encouraged purchase of paper carry bag. It is purely optional on the part of a customer to purchase such bag on payment of Rs.3/-. According to the O.Ps. every Bata Showroom provides display board in prominent place in the Showroom in order to sensitize the customers not to indulge in purchase of paper bag for the sake of protecting the environment and that purchase of paper of is not mandatory. Both the O.Ps. have denied violation of any provisions of section 4(1) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production & Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2006. The O.Ps. further stated in their W.O. that the Complainant himself at the time of purchase of shoes from the Showroom on the relevant date insisted to provide him with the paper bag. According to the O.Ps. there is/was no intention on their part to utilize the paper bag as a medium of advertisement for promotion of sale of products of Bata. 

 

    Denying any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice towards the Complainant, the O.Ps. urged before the Forum to dismiss the complaint.             

EVIDENCE ADDUCE BY THE PARTIES:-

 

 

3. The Complainant examined himself as PW-I and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He has produced 03 documents. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series & Exhibit-2 (Paper bag) Series. The complainant was however cross examined by the O.P. side.

  On behalf of the O.Ps., the O.P. No.2 himself has been examined as witness. He has produced 08 documents. The documents on identification have been marked as   Exhibit -A Series. The said witness was cross examined by the Complainant. 

 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

  (i) Whether there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice indulged in by the  O.Ps towards the Complainant?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/  relief as prayed for?         

 

 

5. DECISION   AND  REASONS  FOR  DECISIONS:- 

      We have heard arguments from both sides. 

We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties, the evidence, both documentary and oral adduced by both sides. 

We have also gone through the written arguments of the Complainant. 

It is evident from the case record that the Complainant on 17/04/2019 purchased two pairs of shoes from the O.P. No.2 on payment of Rs.798/-(Rs.499/- & Rs.299/-). He was made to pay Rs.3/- for the paper bag in order to carry the shoes. The paper bag did not reflect MRP of Rs.3/- and that it got printed the logo of “Bata” and also a message “Bata Surprisingly Stylish Barcelona Milan Singapore New Delhi Rome”. 

 

It was argued by the Complainant that by not printing the MRP of Rs.3/- on the paper bag which has been paid by him and the paper bag also having got printed the logo of “Bata” as well as the message “Bata Surprisingly Stylish Barcelona Milan Singapore New Delhi Rome” are instances of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. towards the Complainant. In support of his argument the Complainant has referred to a decision dated 09/04/2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- I, U-T Chandigarh in case No.CC-64/2019. The Complainant prayed for allowing his complain and for payment of compensation for unfair trade practices indulged in by the O.Ps. towards him.                  

Per-contra Learned Advocate appearing for the O.Ps. contended that the Complainant was never forced to purchase the paper bag from the showroom of the O.P. No.2.  The Complainant on his own volition purchased the paper bag in order to carry the shoes which have been purchased from the Showroom of the O.P. No.2. Learned Advocate further argued that the O.Ps. had no intention to utilize the paper bag as a medium of advertisement for promotion of sale of products of Bata. Regarding the judgment of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- I, U-T Chandigarh in case No.CC-64/2019 referred to by the Complainant, Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. contended that the O.P. No.1 has already preferred revision against the said judgment before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide Revision Petition No.1715/2019 and the Hon'ble National Commission has already passed orders lastly on 11/10/2019. Hence according to the Learned Advocate of the O.Ps. the Complainant can not reap any benefit from the said judgment. Learned Advocate further argued that out of Rs.3/- which was charged on paper bag, 0.23 paise each was deposited by the O.P. No.2 for CGST & SGST which fact was known to the Complainant. Hence non impleadment of the Central Government and the State Government by the Complainant is fatal for the case of the Complainant. Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

We find that O.Ps. did not deny the selling of the paper bag containing the logo of Bata as well as the message “Bata Surprisingly Stylish Barcelona Milan Singapore New Delhi Rome”  to the complainant on a price of Rs.3/-. It is also evident from the paper bag under Exhibit-2 that it did not reflect MRP. of Rs.3/- which amounts to  unfair trade practices on the part of the O.Ps. According to us selling of paper bag containing the logo of Bata as well as the message mentioned above in consideration of Rs.3/- charged from the Complainant is also an instance of unfair trade practices adopted by the O.Ps. towards the Complainant. It is crystal clear that the O.Ps. by selling the paper bag with logo of Bata used it for promoting sales of Bata India Limited at the cost borne by the Complainant. 

We have gone through the order dated 11/10/2019 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1715/2019 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has stayed operation of the impugned order passed by the District Forum-I, U-T Chandigarh, as affirmed in Appeal by the State Commission, in so far as it directs the Petitioner(the O.P. No.1) to provide free carry bags to the customers who purchase articles from its shops. Hence, the contentions of the Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. that the Complainant can not reap any benefit from the judgment passed by the District Forum-I, U-T Chandigarh does not appear to us acceptable as the Hon'ble National Commission did not stay the entire judgment. As regards deposit of 0.23 paise each  for CGST & SGST by the O.Ps. against Rs.3/- charged against the paper bag can not be entertained as we find that the O.Ps. did not disclose this fact in their written objection. 

 

Based on the cogent evidence available on record we record our firm finding that there was unfair trade practices adopted by the O.Ps. towards the Complainant. 

In view of the discussion made above, we find and hold that the Complainant has succeeded in establishing his case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We find the O.Ps. guilty of committing unfair trade practices against the Complainant. The complainant is entitled to get compensation / relief.

Both the issue framed in this case are decided in favour of the Complainant  and against the O.Ps. 

In the result, we direct the O.Ps. jointly and severally to refund Rs.3/- to the Complainant and pay Rs.5,000/-  as compensation for unfair trade practices adopted by them and also Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation.   The Complainant is thus entitled to get in total Rs.8,003/-(Rs.3 + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.3,000/-) from the O.Ps. The payment is to be made within 2 months from the date of judgment, if not, it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full.

 

    Announced.

 

SRI  BAMDEB  MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

SRI  UMESH  DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA