In the matter of a complaint filed by the above named Complainant for deficiency of Service & unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P i.e. City Life Retail Pvt. Ltd., Balasore.
The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant had purchased some items from the O.P’s shop on dtd.17.07.2019 amounting to Rs. 357/-. The Cashier of the O.P handed over the said items with a carry bag bearing the advertisement of the O.P i.e. “CITY LIFE”. The Complainant had no intention to purchase the carry bag, but he was forced to pay the price of the carry bag. Accordingly, the Complainant paid Rs.4/- towards cost of the carry bag to the O.P. The Complainant protested & requested the O.P to refund the cost of the carry bag, but the O.P misbehaved the Complainant in front of other Customers. The Complainant on 24.07.2019 served a legal notice through his advocate to the O.P. On the said legal notice of the Complainant, one Sunil Lohia no way concern replied that the Complainant has not purchased any articles & deficiency of service has not been rendered. This act of O.P amounts to unfair trade practices. The Complainant finding no other way filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P to refund the cost of the carry bag and also provide free carry bag to all the Customers, who purchase goods/ articles/ items from O.P’s shop. Further, the Complainant prayed for compensation & litigation Cost.
2. The O.P received the notice of this District Commission, but the O.P neither appeared nor filed written version. So, the O.P has been set ex-parte from this case vide order dtd.02.11.2021.
3. Points for determination
(i) Whether the Complainant has cause of action for filing of the Consumer case ?
(ii) Whether the O.P has unfair trade practice & deficiency of service on their part ?
(iii) Whether the Complainant entitled to get the relief as sought for ?
4. Findings
Points No (i), (ii) & (iii)- all these points are inter related, for which they are taken up together for the sake of convenience. The Complainant submitted that on purchase of some items from the O.P worth of Rs.357/- on dtd.17.07.2019, the Cashier of O.P put all the items in a carry bag and handed over to the Complainant. Accordingly, the Cashier imposed Rs.4/- towards the cost of the bag. The Complainant has no intention to purchase the carry bag. Further, the Complainant submitted that he has protested to refund the price of the carry bag on the ground, if the carry bag bearing advertisement of the Company/ Shop, the concern Company/ Shop can’t impose charges against the carry bag. But the O.P became mum. It is further submitted that the Complainant sent one legal notice on 24.07.2019. On the said legal notice, one Sunil Lohia, authorized signatory of O.P replied that the Complainant has not purchased any articles from the shop. So, the unfair trade practices and deficiency of Service do not arise on the part of O.P. The Complainant has relied upon two decisions to substantiate his submission.
- Bata India Ltd. (Vrs) Dinesh Parshad Raturi
Appeal No. 98/2019 in S.C.D.R.Commission, Chandigarh.
(ii) M/s. Dominos, Jubilant Foodworks Ltd. (Vrs) Jitendra Bansal
Appeal No. 179/2019 in S.C.D.R.Commission, Chandigarh.
The Complainant submitted that he is a Consumer under the O.P and the O.P knowingly imposed carry bag charges from all the Customers since the day of the opening of the shop. So, there is unfair trade practice & deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.
5. We perused the documents filed on behalf of the Complainant and it is seen from the Xerox copy of Retail invoice vide invoice No. BLSR/047688/19, dtd.17.07.2019 issued by the O.P that on purchase of four nos. of articles by the Complainant, the O.P mentioned the detail of the articles/ Items i.e. quantity, Price, Discount etc. It is further seen that in Sl. No. 04 i.e. RT_CO_Packaging, quantity 01 for Rs.4/- was imposed towards the cost/ Price of the carry bag. It is further seen from the carry bag that the carry bag itself contained the name of the O.P with company logo “City Life” and also information regarding the cities of India, where the O.P has already existing his shops.
6. The Hon’ble State Commission in the above noted decisions, have held that it is the duty of the O.P to provide free carry bags to all the Customer, who purchases articles from the shop because the O.P’s carry bag bear its logo & name on both the sides & the Customer who buys the same is in fact publicizing the brand of the shop and became a brand ambassador. Considering the above aspect & having regards to the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, we hold that the Consumer case is maintainable & the Complainant has cause of action to file this case. It is seen that the O.P from the day of the opening of his shop, imposed carry bag charges bearing name & Brand of the shop from all the Customers, who purchase the articles/ items, which amounts to unfair trade practices. We further hold that the Complainant is entitled to get refund of the cost of carry bag, which was forcibly imposed from the Complainant by the O.P.
O R D E R
The Consumer case filed by the Complainant is allowed on ex-parte. The O.P is directed to refund the amount of Rs.4/-, which was forcibly charged for the carry bag from the Complainant. The O.P is further directed to provide free carry bags to all the Customers, who purchase articles from its shop. The O.P is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation & Rs.2,000/- towards litigation fees to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.P shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a on the total amount to the Complainant till realization.
Pronounced in this open District Commission on 29th November, 2021 given under my signature and seal of this District Commission.
