SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s – 12 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986), alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where the OP is the proprietor of Omm Amrit Venture, Paris Bakery, Balasore.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that he is a consumer under the OP, who purchased one piece of brown bread worth of Rs.30/- on 21.07.2019 from the OP under valid document. At the time of purchase, the OP put the said bread in a carry bag and charged Rs.2/- for the same. The complainant had no intention to purchase the carry bag, rather, it was the duty of the OP to provide free carry bag. So, providing of carry bag and demanding of charge for the same, amounts to unfair trade practice. When the complainant protested and requested to refund the cost of the carry bag, the OP did not listen to him and misbehaved him in front of other customers, for which he suffered mental agony and harassment. Finding no other alternative, on 24.07.2019, the complainant served a legal notice to which the OP refused to receive with an oblique motive, which proves a clear deficiency of service.
The cause of action of this case arose on 24.07.2019, when the complainant served legal notice. Thus, the complainant was constrained to file the present case. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record -
- Photocopy of purchase bill dated 21.07.2019.
- Photocopy of Advocate notice dated 24.07.2019.
- Photocopy of returned Advocate notice.
In the present case, the OP, on receipt of notice, appeared and did not file written version. Further, the OP did not take part in the hearing of the case nor has filed any written argument.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that on 21.07.2019, the OP purchased one piece of brown bread worth of Rs.30/- from the bakery shop of the OP. At the time of purchase, the OP put the said bread in a carry bag and for the carry bag he charged extra Rs.2/-. The complainant has not purchased the carry bag. It is the duty of the OP to provide carry bag to the customers. So, providing of carry bag and demanding its charge for the same amounts to unfair trade practice. It is further urged that when the complainant protested and requested to refund the cost of the carry bag, the OP did not listen to him, rather, misbehaved him in front of other customers, for which he suffered mental agony and harassment. Finding no other alternative, on 24.07.2019, the complainant served a legal notice to which the OP refused to receive with an oblique motive which proves a clear deficiency of service. To satisfy the veracity of the statement, complainant has filed the purchase bill dated 21.07.2019 vide Annexure-1 which shows itself that on 21.07.2019 at 21.06 hour one Brown bread of 350 gm @ Rs.30/- has been purchased by the complainant vide Bill No.151619. At the same time, Bill No.151620 has also been issued showing one carry bag medium size of 20 x 20 @ Rs.2/-. Annexure-2, the copy of Advocate’s notice reflects the same fact regarding preparation of retail invoice for Rs.2/- towards carry bag illegally and intentionally. Annexure-3, the copy of postal Acknowledgement Due, reflects that the OP has refused to receive the Advocate’s notice sent by the complainant. The above endorsement was made by the postal authority on 25.07.2019 and returned the letter to the sender i.e. the complainant. The OP has not come forward to file written version nor took part in the hearing of the case at least to defend the case of the complainant. Thus, the statement of the complainant remains unchallenged.
4. From the above unchallenged statement of the complainant, this Commission is of the considered view that purchase of carry bag is entirely optional and is a voluntary act by a consumer. Such type of practice is now a days rampant in the business establishments which is against the interest of consumers. On one hand, purchase of carry bag is made optional and voluntary and on the other hand, the consumer/ customer is not allowed to enter the shop with empty carry bag or carry bag containing some articles purchased from other shop premises. By adopting above practice, the OP left the complainant with no other option with him but to buy the carry bag along with the goods purchased, to carry such goods from the shop premises. By not allowing the customers to bring the shop premises their own carry bags and thrusting its own carry bags against consideration, the OP is deficient in providing due service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. Further, charging for carry bags is totally against consumerism. Had the OP been displayed any notice in the shop premises or at the entry gate that the customers can bring their own carry bags to carry the goods purchased from the OP, the matter would have been decided otherwise. It was for gain of the OP. By employing unfair trade practice, the OP is minting lot of money from the customers. Thus, this Commission record a firm finding that there was unfair trade practice on the part of OP in compelling the complainant to purchase the carry bag worth Rs.2/-. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as sought for.
Hence, it is ordered –
O R D E R
The case of the complainant is allowed on contest against the OP. The OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2/- for wrongly charged for the carry bag along with payment of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses, to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize the same from the OP through the process of law.
Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 14th day of August, 2023 given under my Signature & Seal of the commission.
