| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No.302 of 15-11-2019 Decided on : 26-08-2022 Maninder Singh aged about 32 years (Advocate Distt Courts Bathinda) S/o Surjit Singh R/o Street No.13, Multania Road, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Vishal Mega Mart (A Franchise Store) Operated by Airplaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd. H.No.98, Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda. ........Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM:- Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Smt.Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present:- For the complainant : Sh.Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate. For opposite party : Sh.Bansi Lal Sachdeva, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President:- The complainant Maninder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Vishal Mega Mart (here-in-after referred to as opposite party). Briefly stated the case of the complainant that he purchased household items including CSEROLE 1500 Grey Rs.617/- select 3 plate 3 bowl meal set green Rs.667/- and IFTWOOD New Pullover Regular Charcoal Rs.186/- total Rs.1470/- vide bill No.4060880018761 dated 24.10.2019 from opposite party and paid amount through his bank account maintained in SBI Bank Debit Card. After purchase of items, he came to his house and checked the bill and see the amount on the bill and completely shocked to notice that amount on the bill is Rs.1470/-, but opposite party illegally and fraudulently charged/deducted amount of Rs.1484/- from the complainant and has illegally charged a sum of Rs.14/- (Rs.13.10/- mentioned in the bill) in excess from him. It is alleged that the complainant immediately reached the shop of opposite party and asked it as to how amount of Rs.1484/- on the purchased goods have been charged from him while amount on bill is Rs.1470/-, opposite party disclosed that it has charged Rs.14/- (Rs.13.10/- written on the bill) of shopping bag. The complainant told that it is the responsibility of opposite party to pack the purchased goods in safe condition in a shopping bag free of costs, then why it illegally charged the amount of Rs.14/- (Rs.13.10/- mentioned in the bill) of shopping bag and no amount of Rs.14/- (Rs.13.10/- mentioned in the bill) is mentioned in the bill, but opposite party failed to give him any satisfactory reply and started making lame excuses. It is further alleged that the complainant requested opposite party to refund him amount of Rs.14/- (Rs.13.10/- mentioned in the bill) that was charged illegally, but it did not agree to. He also requested opposite party to return the goods and returned an amount of Rs.1484/-, but it also did not agree to refund him any amount, rather it has been putting off the matter on one or the other false pretext. Ultimately, two days back, opposite party flatly refused to accede to the requests of the complainant and also started misbehaving with him. The complainant has further alleged that due to act and conduct of opposite party, he also suffered from great mental, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation at the hands of opposite party. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.14/- (Rs.13.10/- mentioned in the bill) charged in excess from him and to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of financial loss, mental tension, agony, botheration, and harassment and Rs.5500/- as cost of complaint or litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed written version. In written version, opposite party has raised the preliminary objections that each and every averment, statement, allegation, and contention made by the complainant is contrary and inconsistent to what has been stated in the reply is denied. No allegation, statement, and contention contained in the complaint should be deemed admitted, save and except those specifically admitted to be true and correct. The complaint is misconceived, erroneous and is also untenable in the eyes of law. The complainant has misdirected himself in filing the captioned complaint before this Forum as the grounds raised by him are devoid of any merits and reasoning and he has failed to bring the case within the essential ingredients of the basic provisions of 'Act'. He has tried to build upon his case on the grounds of 'unfair trade practice' or 'deficiency in service' as defined under 'Act'. No grounds and reasons are mentioned to support such allegations. He is making entirely baseless allegations for some ulterior motive as well as to bring disrepute opposite party. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed solely on this ground. It is wholly and utterly devoid of any grounds whatsoever to even remotely suggest that the actions of opposite party can even be construed as, leave alone resulted in, deficiency in service of any nature or unfair trade practice on its part and same has been categorically presented in the reply. He has tried to mislead this Forum by submitting evasive and misleading averments just to harass opposite party. The averments made in the complaint are incomplete and misleading, which have been carved out in a manner to falsely showcase that the complainant had been duped by opposite party by charging a cost of Rs.13.10/- (after discount) for one carry bag, even when he opposed such charging. The true facts of the case are totally different from the submissions and averments stated by him. Further preliminary objections raised by opposite party are that the true and correct factual position of the case are that the complainant had allegedly visited the store of opposite party on 24.10.2019 and purchased certain household items from the store vide bill No.4060880018761 for a total sum of Rs.1484/- including charges for a carry bag @ Rs.13.10/- (after discount), at his own sweet will and desire. During the course of his visit, he was made well aware by the store executive of the company, at the sale counter about the charges for different variants of the carry bags and also informed regarding option to use his own carry bag in case he does not wish to purchase the carry bag from the store. He exercised the option to purchase a carry bag from the store, which was priced @Rs.13.10/- (after discount), by his voluntarily and informed will, after perusing the sizes and price associated with all the carry bags offered and made available at the store. The carry bag was billed only upon the willful affirmation/free consent extended by the complainant to that effect and not without the knowledge of the complainant as alleged by him in the complaint. The company at all of its outlets/stores has very categorically pasted legible and presentable notices/signages, which are displayed at the very entrance of the store that the customers are free to bring their own empty carry bags into the store and take away the goods and commodities purchased by them from the store in the carry bags brought by them. It has been clearly displayed at the billing counter and also at various places in the store that the customer may purchase the carry bags of different variants as per their requirements, which are available at the store at different prices. Opposite party also the raised preliminary objections that none of the employees at its store have ever compelled any of its customers including complainant to purchase carry bags from the store. In case, the carry bags are provided free of cost to the customers, it will lead to the same situation, because of which the legislature was compelled to formulate and implement Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2011, making plastic carry bags chargeable. In case, the paper bags are provided free, people will again resort to indiscriminate use of paper bags, which in turn lead to more shelling of trees to cater the increased demand and eventually have even more worse and adverse impact on the environment. To support its version, opposite party has also reffered views regarding carry bags of The Ministry, Govt. of India and Hon'ble Prime Minister of India and quoted some cases law, references of which are not necessary at this stage. Further preliminary objections are that there is no legal obligation on opposite party, as a retailer, to provide the free carry bags under the applicable laws. Opposite party had nowhere undertaken an obligation in a contract to provide free carry bags. The transaction between the store/outlet and complainant was in a form of contract for the goods requested and sold to him as per his demand. The delivery of goods and not providing free carry bag to him cannot by any means constitute breach of applicable laws including 'Act'. The complaint is nothing, but an attempt of the complainant to damage the reputation of opposite party and frivolously extort money from it at the same time posing to be a person taking up issues for the common man without highlighting any of them. No relief as claimed can be granted to the complainant. On merits, opposite party admitted that the complainant visited the store on 24.10.2019 and purchased certain items for a total sum of Rs.1484/- vide bill No.4060880018761 including charges for a carry bag for a sum of Rs.13.10/- (after discount) from the store of the company. The complaint is wrong, baseless and vehemently denied to its entirety. In further written version, opposite party has reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary objections as detailed above and controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy cost. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of bill and carry bag (Ex.C1 and Ex.C2) and affidavit of Maninder Singh dated 20.11.2019 (Ex.C3). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Amit Mangi dated 6.3.2020, (Ex.OP1/1) and photocopy of photograph (Ex.OP1/2). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as written arguments submitted by complainant. The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. On 24.10.2019, the complainant purchased various articles by visiting Vishal Mega Mart, situated at H.No.98, Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda. Bill, (Ex.C1) proves this fact. It is the allegations of the complainant that he purchased the various articles, which he was supposed to carry home, but when he came to home, he was completely shocked to notice that amount on the bill is Rs.1470/-, but opposite party charged an amount of Rs.1484/- from him including Rs.14/- (Rs.13.10/- mentioned in the bill) for carry bag. He has termed the action of opposite party illegal, malafide and an unfair trade practice. He has claimed that opposite party had no right to charge extra Rs.14/- for carrying those articles in a carry bag. It is writ-large on the file that the complainant had purchased various articles by paying an amount of Rs.1484/- and had to pay Rs.14/- extra for the carry bag, which we feel is definitely an unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. It is not possible for an ordinary man to carry those small-small articles without any carry bag. At the same time, opposite party had no right to charge separately for the carry bag, which is a definitely a part and parcel of the purchase. It is also contention of oppsoite party that the complainant was made aware by the store executive of the company at the sale counter about the charges for different variants of carry bags and also informed regarding option to use his own carry bag in case he does not wish to purchase the carry bag from store, but opposite party did not examine said store executive to prove this fact. Moreover the carry bag, (Ex.C2) which is not disputed by parties is having printing of the name of opposite party on its strings. The Commission is of the veiw that the object of printing of its name on carry bag by opposite party is for promotion of sale and to bring its name to the notice of general public. So, we feel that carry bag was forced upon the complainant at the fixed price as fixed by opposite party which opposite party has no legal right to do so and there is definitely an unfair trade practice. We have seen in a number of cases, these businessmen extract more and more money from the poor and genuine consumers in various shapes. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a special Act, which is enacted to prevent the mal practice as well as the unfair trade practice prevailing among the businessmen. We are of the view that the amount charged for carry bag by opposite party is an unfair trade practice on its part. The present Act envisages provisions for product liability action on account of harm caused to consumers due to a defective product or policy or by deficiency in service. In view of discussed above, the complaint is partly allowed against opposite party. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.14/- and to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/-, to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made by opposite party within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 26-08-2022 - (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President
(Paramjeet Kaur) Member | |
