DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:  CC- 124 of 2021.

 

Smt. Jayesree Bhusan, 

D/O- Sri Swapan Kumar Bhusan,

College Tilla, P.S. East Agartala, 

P.O. Agartala College, Agartala,

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

 

-VERSUS-

 

Store Manager,

Vishal Mega Mart,

(A Franchise Store Operated by 

Airplaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd.)

Hariganga Basak Road, 

Melarmath, Opp. of SBI,

Agartala Branch,

P.S.-West Agartala, 

Dist.- West Tripura-799001,

To be represented by the Store Manager. ................. Opposite Party.

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

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,

  Lerned Advocate. 

 

For the O.P.  : Mr. Saikat Rahman,

  Smt. Debasree Das Kilikdar,

  Sri Manojit Das,

  Sri Victor Ghosh,  

    Learned Advocates. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 28.09.2022

 

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 29.09.2021 the Complainant went to Vishal Mega Mart Shopping Mall, Melarmath, Agartala for purchasing some household articles. While entering inside into the shopping mall, staffs of O.P. at the gate did not allow the complainant to enter within their business premises with carry bag which the complainant brought with her. However, the complainant entered into the mall after leaving the carry bag. After purchasing those articles when proceeded to the cash counter for payment, the staffs of the cash counter took carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of those articles without asking the complainant in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to the complainant. Then the staff of the cash counter told her to pay Rs.18/- extra as the charge of carry bag vide cash memo/invoice dated 29.09.2021. Though she had no intention to purchase the carry bags he was forced to pay the price of the carry bag. The complainant contacted with the store manager, form there also did not get any proper response for the extra charge for the carry bag. As the items were necessary for her she was forced to pay Rs.18/- for the same. The complainant stated that for the act of the O.P. shopping mall she had to suffer mental pressure, agony and faced harassment in front of the other customer which was unbearable to her and beyond expectation from such a reputed shopping mall. It is also stated by the complainant that the O.P. 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 his complaint petition. In their written statement they have stated that the complainant filed the complaint with baseless allegations and it is liable to be dismissed. Before the customer purchase the billing counter for billing the goods by the customer  are clearly intimated and made aware via signage installed at/ near the billing counter that the carry bags are available at the store at chargeable basis. In case customers do not intend to purchase the carry bags they can use their own carry bag. The O.P. also vehemently denied the allegations of harassment. 

  

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES: -

  The complainant has submitted the examination in chief on affidavit as P.W.1. She submitted 2 documents namely Invoice/cash memo and 'Carry bag' vide Firisthi dated 01.11.2021. On identification the photocopy of the invoice/cash memo is marked as Exhibit- 1 and the 'Carry Bag' is marked as M.O.1.   

 

O.P. also submitted examination in chief on affidavit of one Sumeet Chakma, Senior Employee of the O.P. as D.W.1. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

  (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 : -

Written argument is submitted on behalf of the O.P. At the time of argument complainant was found absent. We heard Learned Advocate Mr. Saikat Rahman on behalf of the O.P. Mr. Rahman submits that complainant has failed to prove his complaint. So, it is liable to be dismissed. 

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

  Both issues are taken up together for the convenience. We have perused the complaint petition, written reply as well as the evidences adduced by the parties. In the instant complaint the crux of the allegation is that complainant was compelled to pay Rs.18/- for a carry bag. It is also alleged that illegal practice is going on since the inception of the Vishal Mega Mart at Agartala and they are selling cheap quality carry bag in high rate without maintaining proper rules and regulations. On perusal of the invoice it is found that there is no customer's name in the the invoice. Complainant failed to prove her case by adducing proper evidence. On the other hand O.P. denied the allegation and stated in their evidence by way of affidavit that all customers were made very well aware of the fact that the carry bags are available on chargeable basis with different variants as per the size of the carry bag. There is no compelling situation to the customer to purchase carry bag. 

 

7. In the instant case, complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. So, complaint is dismissed. No costs. 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

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.