DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 04 of 2020

 

Shri Manojit Saha,

S/O. Shri Tapan Saha,

R/O.House No.02/243, 

Vill.Vivekananda Palli, 

P.O.-Amarpur, Pin-799101,

P.S.-Birganj, Dist.-Gomati Tripura

 

Present Address – 

C/O.-Kajal Paul,

Kamalghat, Mohanpur,

West Tripura, Pin-799210…...............................................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

“VISHAL MEGA MART”,

Hari Ganga Basak Road, Opposite SBI Main Branch,

Melarmath, Agartala, 

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

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : In person. 

 

 

For the O.P.  : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

  Advocate.  

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :   21/ 06/2021.

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Shri Manojit Saha, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.P.

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased on 27/12/2019 some household goods from “Vishal Mega Mart” Shopping Mall, Hari Ganga Basak Road, Opposite SBI Main Branch, Melarmath, Agartala. 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 . But surprisingly the staff of the cash counter told him to pay extra Rs.12.50/- for carry bag which was not mentioned in the carry bag of Vishal Mega Mart. Thereafter, he made contact with the “Vishal Mega Mart” authority to provide carry bag free of cost, for the purchased items /articles from their shop.  But no response as a result he had to suffer mental pressure, agony and faced harassment infront of the other customers which was unbearable to him. 

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the conduct of the O.P.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming Rs.50,000/-  as deficiency of service and as compensation for causing harassment, negligence, mental agony and Rs.12.50/- as cost of paper carry bag  from the O.P.  

 

 2. On the other hand O.P. contested the case by filling written statement. 

In the written statement the O.P. submitted para-wise reply to the complaint in seriatim. Mostly, O.P. denied and disputed the averments made in the complaint.           

EVIDENCE ADDUCE BY THE PARTIES:-

 

3. The Complainant examined himself as PW-I and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He has produced 02 documents. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series and M.O.-1. The Complainant was cross examined by the O.P. side. 

        On behalf of the O.P. one witness namely Sri Sumeet Chakma, S/O. Sri D M Chakma, working for gain as Store Manager was examined.  O.P. has produced 5 documents comprising 30 sheets under a Firisti dated 03/06/2020. The documents are namely Reply on behalf of the O.P. to the complaint firled by the Complainant, Authorization letter, Photographs of the  notice allowing the customers to bring in their own carry bags in to the Store, Photographs depicting the price of carry bag available on chargeable basis at the sale counter & VOKALATNAMA. On identification the documents are marked as Exhibit-A series. The O.P. was not cross examined by the Complainant side as it is a summary trial.   

 

4.    POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

  On perusal of the pleadings of both parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, 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?    

 

5.          ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES         

         On the date of argument the Complainant was absent but Learned Counsel Mr. S. Choudhury was present on behalf of the O.P. and we heard Mr. Choudhury.

        Mr. Choudhury submitted that customers will have to bring their carry bag for shopping purpose and there is no law under which O.P. is required to give a shopping bag free of cost to its customers. Learned Counsel of the O.P. submitted to dismiss the complaint as devoid of merit. 

 

6.     DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

        Both issues are taken up together for the convenience.

        There is no dispute in respect of charging of Rs.12.50/- for a carry bag. From the exhibited documents i.e. the Cash Memo or Invoice, we find that the O.P. charged Rs.12.50/- for a carry bag. From the Examination-in-Chief submitted by one Sumeet Chakma as a OPW-I, we find that customers are not forced to buy any carry bag and they were asked to bring their own bag.  It is also stated that the staff of bill counter took the carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of this purchased articles without asking the Complainant. The Complainant in support of his complaint adduced examination-in-Chief on Affidavit and he has reiterated the alleged fact in his evidence. He further stated that he was forced to pay Rs.12.50/- extra for the carry bag.        

              We have perused the decision of the Hon'ble State Commission passed in case No.A-1 of 2020 (Big Bazaar Vs. Monojit Saha). The Hon'ble State Commission upheld the judgment passed by this Commission in a similar case where Rs.10/- was charged for a paper carry bag by the Big Bazaar shopping mall. Relying upon the above judgment we are in the opinion that the O.P. is guilty of committing deficiency in service by charging extra amount for the carry bag and it also amounts to unfair trade practice. 

 

7.            So, we hold that the Complainant has been able to prove his case U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, we give a direction to the O.P. to refund the amount of Rs.12.50/- which was charged for carry bag and also Rs.7,000/- as a compensation and Rs.3,000/- as a cost of litigation i.e. in total of Rs.10,012.50/-(Rs.7,000/- + Rs.3,000/- + Rs.12.50/-). 

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

Supply a certified 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