Hon'ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
This case arises out of a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case of the Complainant in a nutshell is that on 24.11.2019 he had purchased one Mu-Kurta from the shop of the O.P. The Complainant also was given a carry bag with the impression “City Life”, which is the trade name of the O.P and charged Rs.5/- for that. But the Complainant raised objection for charging of Rs.5/- for the bag. On 26.11.2019 he had filed complaint before the O.P through email. But the Complainant did not receive any positive response and finally he was compelled to file this case praying for relief(s) as prayed for and therefore the Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.5/- price of bag charged, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for unfair trade practice, cost of litigation Rs.5,000/-.
Summons upon the O.P was duly rewarded. But nobody did not turn up to contest this case and hence the case was heard ex-parte against O.P.
We have gone through the materials on record very carefully and have, perused the documents of the Complainant and heard ex-parte argument by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant at length.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the instant case maintainable?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief(s)?
- To what other relief(s), if any Complainant is entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All points are taken up together.
Admittedly the Complainant is a bonafide Customer / Consumer of the O.P.
It is the contention of the Complainant that purchasing one garment separately, he had purchased a “City Life” carry bag of Rs.5/-. At the time of procuring, the bill he raised an objection in respect of O.P trade name carry bag with the logo of City Life Retail Pvt. Ltd. because he is not an advertisement agent of the O.P. On 26.11.2019 the Complainant filed a complaint through email before the O.P but the matter was not settled and subsequently on 18.12.2019 the Complainant approached the Ld. Commission. After receiving the notice from the Ld. Commission, the O.P did not turn up in this case, for which this case was heard ex-parte against the O.P.
The point of the dispute is that purchasing the carry bag with the impression “City Life” which is trade name of the O.P with a charge of Rs.5/- for that. He raised objection because he is not an advertisement agent of the O.P as alleged by the Complainant in his complaint as well as in evidence in chief supported by affidavit.
We have gone through the record very carefully and have. Perused the documents, evidence on affidavit filed by the Complainant. It appears that the O.P prepared bill, Tax Invoice No. Din/037460/19 cash of Rs.305/- including RT-Co packaging carry bag of Rs.5/- (Annexure-A).
Admittedly, Rs.5/- was charged for the carry bag by the O.P. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the O.P cannot force the customer to buy carry bag. Even if carry bag is sold for price, the same cannot be for advertisement through the customer as the customer is not an advertisement agent for the O.P company.
The argument as made by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant seems to be tenable. The Complainant had no intention to purchase the carry bag and it was duty of the O.P to provide the carry bag. But the Complainant was forced to pay price of the carry bag. It was so noticed on perusal of the invoice attached. The bag was being used as advertisement by the O.P as on the carry bag which is annexed with the present consumer complaint the impression “City Life” was printed. Thus, at the cost of consumer, he was being used as the advertisement agent of the City Life Retail Pvt. Ltd. Hence, it was unfair trade practice and punitive damages.
As per this evidence brought on record, we record a firm finding that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P in compelling the Complainant to purchase the carry bag worth Rs.5/-. He should have given the same to the Complainant free of cost. It was for gain of O.P by employing unfair trade practice. O.P is minting lot of money from all customers.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That in the light of above observations, we are of the view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the O.P and the same is allowed ex-parte.
The O.P is hereby directed to refund to the Complainant the amount of Rs.5/- wrongly charged for the carry bag and O.P is directed to pay Rs.4,000/- for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and O.P is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- for litigation cost.
If the aforesaid order is not complied within 30 days from the date of this order. The O.P is liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the entire awarded sum for a period until realization. Complainant shall also be at liberty to execute the said order in accordance with law.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.