DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 96 of 2022.

 

1. Sri Sampad Choudhury,

S/O. Sri Bidhu Bhusan Choudhury,

R/O. Bholananda Palli,

P.O.-Kathal Bagan, Pin-799006,

P.S.-New Capital Complex,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala….......................................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

1. V MART, 

  A Unit of V MART Retail Ltd., 

15 Sakuntala Road, Near Samajpoti Market,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.-West Tripura …............................................................................ 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 : In-person. 

 

For the O.P.  : None appeared. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 23/08/2022

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Sampad Choudhury, 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 26/03/2022 the Complainant went to V MART Shopping Mall, 15 Sakuntala Road, Near Samajpoti Market, Agartala for purchasing some wearing apparel 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 him. Thereafter he went to the bill counter for payment of the goods, the staff of the bill counter took carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of those purchased articles without asking him in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state,so that its physical possession could be handed over to him. But surprisingly the staff of the cash counter told him to pay extra Rs.5/- for carry bag. Then the Complainant was forced to pay Rs.5/- extra as the carry bag charge in Cash Memo/Invoice Vide No.M113632-E64, dated 26/03/2022. Thereafter, he made contact with the Store Manager of the mall but from there also he did not get any proper response of extra charge for carry bag and he also enquired on what basis they charged for Rs.5/- for low quality carry bag and also asked them to provide him any circular regarding that issue but they did not pay any attention of his queries. He again went to the bill counter for rectification of bill and requested the staff of the cash counter to remove the extra charge of carry bag but surprisingly the staff of the cash counter loudly told him in front of the other customers of the mall that rectification of bill is not possible. As a result he had to suffer mental pressure, agony and faced harassment infront of the other customers which was unbearable to him. Hence, there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of O.P. namely “V MART” Shopping Mall, 15 Sakuntala Road, Near Samajpoti Market. 

Hence this case. 

2. Notice was issued upon the O.P. for appearance and filing of W.O. but inspite of receiving notice O.P. did not turn up. As a result the case is proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. vide order dated 22/07/2022.   

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant has produced 02 documents under a Firisti dated 29/03/2022. The documents are namely the Original Cash Memo and the Carry bag. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series and M.O.-1.           

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the Complainant and having regard to the evidence adduced by the Complainant, the following points are 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?           

EX-PARTE ARGUMENT :-

              At the time of argument Complainant himself submitted that charging of Rs.5/- for a carry bag is most illegal under Sub-section 5 of Section 36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Then, Complainant was forced to pay Rs.5/- extra for a carry bag and it was mentioned in the cash memo or in the invoice. Complainant further submits that the activities and behaviour of the staff of the O.P. was unbearable to the Complainant. He further submitted that the charging of Rs.5/- for a carry bag amounts to deficiency in service as well as it is an unfair trade practice and Complainant is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service of the O.P. Complainant relied upon a decision of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble State Commission in First Appeal No.A/32/2021 dated 17/05/2022 (Vishal Mega Mart Vs. Sri Mridul Kanti Arya).     

          

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

Both issues are taken up together for the convenience.

          We have gone through the complaint and also evidence adduced from the side of the Complainant.

          On perusal of the complaint it is found that the crux of the allegation is that Complainant was compelled to purchase carry bag which is illegal. Complainant in support of the complaint adduced one invoice(Exhibit-1) and one carry bag which is marked as Exhibit-M. O.-1. Since it is an ex-parte proceeding burden lies upon the Complainant to proof that he was forced to purchase a carry bag on payment of extra. Exhibit-1 does not show the name of the Complainant as purchaser. Invoice also does not support that the Complainant actually purchased some goods from the shopping mall(O.P.) and Complainant made extra payment for the carry bag. 

      In the instant case invoice is the vital document. Since we did not find any name of the purchaser in the invoice, we hold that Complainant is not able to prove that he himself purchased the carry bag from the shopping mall of the O.P.   

 

 

7.        In view of the above discussion we are in the opinion that Complainant has failed to prove his case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.       

          Supply a certified copy of the judgment to the Complainant 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.