DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 22 of 2022.

 

 

Smt. Popy Datta,

D/O- Lt. Babul Datta,

Ker Choumuhani, Near Hungry Port,

P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala,

District- West Tripura- 799004. …............................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

The Store Manager,

Pantaloons Store,

Mantribari Road, 

1st Floor, M.L. Plaza, Agartala, 

P.S.-West Agartala, P.O. Agartala, 

Dist.- West Tripura, Pin-799001. .............................Opposite Party.

 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Utpal Das,

  Learned Advocate.

 

For the O.P.  : Sri Karnajit De,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 09.09.2022

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 complaining against the O.P. for deficiency of service. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that on 05.12.2021  the Complainant went to Pantaloons Store for purchasing some wearing apparels and while entering inside into the Shopping Mall, the staff of O.P. at the entrance gate does not allow the Complainant to enter within their business premises with carry bags which the Complainant brought with her. Thereafter she went to the bill counter for payment the staff of the bill counter told  to pay extra Rs.7 /- for carry bag. Complainant told the person at the cash counter that it is their duty to provide carry bag  for carrying the purchased goods and charging money for the same is illegal.  But they did not pay any heed  to the complainant and said that to pay the price of the carry bag is mandatory. Thereafter, she made contact with the Store Manager but from there also did not get any proper response of extra charge for carry bag and also enquired on what basis they charged for Rs.7/- for low quality carry bag and asked them to provide any circular regarding that issue but they did not pay any attention of the queries. It is also stated by the complainant that the staffs of the O.P. misbehaved with her in front of other customer. As the wearing apparels are necessary for the complainant and cannot be able to take them in hands  complainant was forced to pay Rs.7/- for the carry bag. For the act of the O.P. complainant had to suffer mental pressure, agony and faced harassment in front of the other customers which was unbearable. It is also stated by the complainant that illegal practice is going on since the inception of the Pantaloons Store at Agartala and they are selling cheap quality of carry bag in high rate violating the rules and regulations. The act of the O.P. for charging extra for the carry bag amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. Hence, complainant filed this case claiming compensation of Rs.80,000/- for causing harassment, mental agony etc. along with litigation cost. 

 

2. After getting notice from this Commission the O.P. appeared and filed written reply denying the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint petition. In their written statement they have stated that the complaint is barred by principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence, not maintainable in facts or in law and it is liable to be dismissed. It is stated by the O.P. that the company encourage the customer to bring their own carry bag. Purchase of carry bag is option given  to the customer. In case the customer wants to purchase the carry bag  the price of the same is informed first to the customer and only after his/her acceptance to buy the same, it is billed to the customer. There is no compulsion to buy the same. There is no mandate in any law to provide customer carry bag free of cost.  Therefore it can not be termed as unfair trade practice under section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. None of the stores of the O.P. across the country prohibit entrance with empty carry bag nor the company has any legal right to do so. The instant complaint proceeds on the basis of a false and defamatory statement and is liable to be dismissed in limine with heavy costs. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

  Complainant submitted examination in chief on affidavit as PW-I. In this case the complainant has produced 02 documents under a Firisti dated 21.01.2022. The documents namely the copy of Tax Invoice dated 05.12.2021 and the Carry bag on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 and M.O.-1 respectively.

  

  On the other hand, one Sri Tarak Das, Assistant Manager, Operations, Pantaloons Store, M.L. Plaza, Agartala submitted examination in chief on affidavit as D.W.1.       

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the pleadings and the evidences adduced by the both the parties, following points cropped up for determination:-

    (i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant?

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

 

5. ARGUMENT :-

At the time of argument both the complainant and the O.P. are found absent. Hence, the case will be decided on merit. 

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

  Both issues are taken up together for the convenience. We have gone through the complaint as well as the evidences adduced by both sides. Complainant in her examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that she was not allowed with a carry bag to enter into the shopping mall of the O.P. and she was forced to make an extra payment of Rs.7/- for carry bag, though she had no intention to purchase the carry bag. She has submitted the invoice and the carry bag which is marked as Exhibit-1 & M.O.-1. She deposed that for the act of the staff of the shopping mall she had suffered mental pressure, agony and faced harassment in front of the other customers which are unbearable. 

 

7. On the other hand, O.P.W. 1, Tarak Das in his examination in chief submitted that complainant was never prohibited to enter the premise with empty carry bag. Empty baggage for shopping purpose is always encouraged. Complainant was never forced to purchase carry bag. The charge of carry bags is in accordance with the notification and guidelines framed by ''Retailers Association of India''(RAI) and it represents the right of Indian retailers. Customers satisfaction is of utmost priority for the O.P. Charging of carry bag does not come under the purview of the definition  of ''Unfair Trade Practice'' under the Consumer Protection Act. Also stated that charges for the carry bags are being taken in accordance with the notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 4th February, 2011 which expressly provides that carry bags are to be provided to the customers at a cost. Therefore, no consumer can claim free carry bag as a vested right. 

 

8. As per provision of Sub-section-5 of Section-36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 there is an obligation on the part of the seller that the seller will hand over the possession of the purchased goods to its customers into a deliverable State. So, under the provision of Section-36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 a seller can not charge for a carry bag which is used for the purpose of handing over the purchased goods in deliverable State, if the bag itself is not purchased as a goods or item.   

                            

9.            In the instant case, we find that the bag was sold as an item in contravention of sale of Goods Act, 1930. So, we are in the opinion that Complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. We give a direction to the O.P. to refund the amount of Rs.7/- which was charged for carry bag and also Rs.500/- as a compensation and Rs.500/- as a cost of litigation i.e. in total of Rs.1,007/-(Rs.500/- + Rs.500/- + Rs.7/-). 

  The O.P. is directed to make the payment within 1(one) month from the date of judgment, if the payment is not made within 1(one)month then it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made in full.                  

Supply copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost.

 

 

        Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.