Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

243/2014

Mr.Devadas - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Life Style International(P) Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M.Madhu Prakash

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  16.12.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  28.02.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY  THE 28^th  DAY OF FEBRURY 2017

 

C.C.NO.243/2014

 

 

Mr.Devadas,

S/o.Mr.E.N.Padmanabhan,

Xandu, 1059, 10^th Street,

Poompuhar Nagar,

Kolathur,

Chennai – 600 099.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Manager,

Life style International Pvt Ltd.,

Express Avenue,

49-50L, Whites Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

2.Raghunandan,

Team Lifestyle,

Life style International Pvt. Ltd.,

Express Avenue,

49-50L, Whites Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 19.12.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Mr.M.Madhu Prakash,

                                                                   Mrs.K.Nithiyavathi,

                                                                   Mr.P.S.Padmakumar & Mr.T.Siva

                                                                   Saravana Pandian

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   :Mr.J.M.Dharma Sanjeevi, Nirmal Roy

                                                                Sanjeevi, B.Sivakumar & K.David      

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant   to order a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice and another sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant visited the Opposite Parties showroom at Express Avenue, Mount Road, Chennai on 22.06.2014 and purchased 17 items worth of Rs.16,728/-. When the Complainant was billing the 17 items, the cashier in the counter billed along with a carry bag, the Complainant immediately stated that before billing the cashier must ask the consent of the customer whether they are in need of carry bag. The Complainant states that he is totally against the usage of the Plastic carry bag, and the cashier has billed the carry bag without the Complainant’s consent. The cashier immediately swiped the payment from the Complainant’s Credit Card and the Complainant requested for an eco friendly bag and the Complainant was also ready to pay for it, but the cashier didn’t accept it and also stated that they only provide plastic bag. The Complainant immediately called the first Opposite Party and stated the issue, but he was not given proper reply. The Complainant refused the plastic carry bag and requested to refund the cost which was charged for the plastic bag without the consent of the Complainant. But the 1^st Opposite Party neither refunded the money nor gave an alternate eco friendly bag to the Complainant.  The 1^st Opposite Party took back the plastic bag and dropped all the items which has been purchased by the Complainant, and forced the Complainant to leave the showroom. The Complainant sent a mail on 20^th September 2014 to the 2^nd Opposite Party, stating clearly about the issue which happened to the Complainant, but there was no response from the second Opposite Party. The Complainant submits that both the Opposite Parties misuse the law passed by the government by forcing their customer by charging for plastic carry bags. As there was no remedy for the Complainant in the above said subject matter of grievance he had issued legal notice dated 15.11.2014 to the Opposite Parties. The practice of the Opposite Parties is amount to unfair trade practice. Hence the Complainant filed the Complaint claiming compensation for unfair trade practice and mental agony with cost of the Complaint.   

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties, at the outset, would state that the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi issued a notification dated 04.02.2011 with reference to the Plastics Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 to burn the usage of plastic in any form including carry bags and in strict adherence to the aforesaid Notification, the 1^st Opposite Party stopped issuing free carry bags to its customers. Explicit pricing of the carry bags wherein it is stipulated that “No carry bags shall be available free of cost by retailers to consumers.” The 1^st Opposite Party has been strictly observing the aforesaid rules in all its transactions across the country without exception for which reason the Complainant is before this Forum in a Complaint, both false and frivolous. The Complainant came to the billing counter and was asked at the time of billing if he requires a carry bag and that carry bags would be charged. Since the customer agreed, he was billed for the carry bag. It is not true that the customer was billed for the carry bag without his knowledge. It is common knowledge that only after receiving a bill, after examining the items charged does any customer make the payment vide cash or credit/debit card. If the Complainant did not request the carry bag, he could have told the staff at the cash counter declined to pay the bill.  The customer paid the bill willingly and did not make any protest as alleged in the Complaint. It is not true that the Complainant asked the Opposite Parties for an eco friendly bag. It is also not true that this Opposite Party took back the carry bag, dropped all the items purchased by the Complainant and forced the Complainant to leave the showroom. The allegation that the Complainant carried 17 items on his head and shoulder will speak for itself insofar as it is common knowledge that 17 items cannot be carried on anybody’s shoulder and head. The Opposite Party received from the Complainant an e-mail on 25.08.2014 stating that “the use of plastic is banned yet you are selling it which is an offence”. The Complainant was aggrieved that the Opposite Parties charged him for the plastic carry bag which is mandated by the aforesaid notification. The Opposite Party person contacted the Complainant and clarified that charging for plastic bags required by customers was in strict conformity of a notification of the government. However the Complainant demanded that if the Opposite Party did not pay him a huge compensation, he would drag the Opposite Parties by way of litigation. The legal notice dated 15.11.2014 alleged that the cashier had forced the Complainant to take plastic carry bag and demanded that action be taken against the cashier. The Opposite Parties checked with the cashier and found that the allegation in the legal notice about the cashier was totally false. The Opposite Parties has not practiced any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased 17 items on 22.06.2014 at the  Opposite Party show room at Express Avenue, Royapettah, Chennai – 14 and he was billed for the above said items  under Ex.A1 for a sum of Rs.16,728/- inclusive of Rs.7/- for plastic carry bag and the Complainant also paid that amount  through his credit card.

          5. The Complainant contended that before billing for the inclusion of the cost of the plastic carry bag, the  billing cashier should have obtained the consent of the Complainant and without his consent, he had included the cost of the plastic bag in the bill and the Complainant raised his objection and also requested to give eco friendly bag and he is ready to pay for the same and the cashier did not accept his request and replied that they provide only plastic bag and the Complainant is not in the habit of using plastic carry bags and misusing the government order the Opposite Parties practicing  an unfair trade practice and thereby the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service.

          6. The Opposite Parties contended that as per the notification of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi dated 04.02.2011 with reference to the plastic waste rules, 2011 the Opposite Parties strictly adhering stopped issuing free carry bags to its customers and the Complainant came to the billing counter and required a carry bag to carry items purchased by him  and hence he was charged for a carry bag and it is false that without the knowledge of the Complainant the cost of the plastic carry bag was included in his bill and further after two months, the Complainant sent Ex.A2 mail dated 25.08.2014 establishes that the   Complainant   wanted only to  enrich himself he had issued the mail and also to meet the ends of the same issued Ex.A3 legal notice and filed this Complaint and the Opposite Parties have not committed any unfair trade practice and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          7. According to the Complainant, the cashier in the billing counter included the cost of the plastic carry bag of Rs.7 in the Ex.A1 bill.  However the Opposite Party would say that the cashier after getting the consent of the Complainant only he has billed for the plastic carry bag. The Complainant purchased things on 22.06.2014 at the Opposite Parties show room.  After two months only the Complainant sent Ex.A2 mail to the Opposite Parties that “Use of plastic is banned, yet you are selling which again is an offense. If I do not get any satisfactory compensation and unless you practically pack and give materials that is purchased by customer, in an eco friendly material I will be legally proceeding within another 15 days”.  If really the cashier in the billing counter without consent of the Complainant he had billed the cost of the plastic carry bag the same fact would have been certainly reflected in Ex.A2 mail. Further the Complainant paid the amount through his credit card. Only after seeing the bill and after ascertaining the bill amount only anyone will give credit card or debit card for paying the amount. In this case also the Complainant after knowing bill amount only certainly he could have handed over his credit card and  paid the amount. At the time of seeing the bill inclusion of the plastic carry bag cost, he could have refused to pay the amount and if he is not in the habit of using plastic. Excepting seeking compensation from the Opposite Parties no other fact stated in that mail at the time of purchase. Therefore, the conduct of the Complainant reveals from Ex.A2 shows only to enrich him he has sent Ex.A2 mail to the Opposite Parties.  After issuing Ex.A2 and after more than two months the Complainant issued Ex.A3 legal notice with improved allegations against the Opposite Parties and thereafter filed this Complaint. The Opposite Parties following the notification dated 04.02.2011 only they have included the cost of the plastic carry bag in the bill of the Complainant after getting his consent and therefore we hold that  the Opposite Parties have not committed and any unfair trade practice and accordingly this point is answered.

08. POINT NO:2

          Since the Opposite Parties have not committed unfair trade practice, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.      

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th day of February 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 22.06.2014                   Bill for the purchase Made

 

 

Ex.A2 dated 25.08.2014                   Private Notice caused to the 2^nd Opposite Party

                                                    through E-mail

 

Ex.A3 dated 15.11.2014                   Legal Notice caused to the Opposite Party

 

Ex.A4 dated 15.11.2014                   Postal Receipt for the Legal Notice caused  to both

                                                    the opposite Parties

 

Ex.A5 dated 20.11.2014                   Acknowledgement card for receiving the notice by

                                                    1^st Opposite Party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                          ……NIL …….

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT