Orissa

Cuttak

CC/23/2021

Miss Sanjukta Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vishal Mega Mart - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                C.C.No.23/2021                             

Miss Sanjukta Singh,

D/O:Rama Chandra Singh,

Studying at Madhusudan Law University,

Cuttack Municipal Colony Station Bazar,Cuttack.                              ... Complainant.

                                               

                                                Vrs.

                                        

1. The Branch Head,

Vishal Mega Mart,

Western Markete building,Shop No.7,

Bhubaneswar-9,Dist:Khorda.

 

2. The Managing Director,

Vishal Mega Mart Head Office,

Plot No.184,Platinum Tower,5^th Floor,Udyog Vihar,

Industrial Area,Gurgaon-122016.                                                          ... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debashis Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   08.02.2021

Date of Order: 11.04.2022

 

For the complainant:    Self

For the O.Ps:      Sri Prakash K Mishra,Advocate.

Sri Debasis Nayak,President.

                       

                        The case record is put up today for orders.

            2. Bereft unnecessary details, the case of the complainant as made out from her complaint petition is that on 14.12.2020 she had purchased some articles from the shop of the O.Ps and had paid the consideration amount through her credit/debit card.  To her dismay, when she perused the bill, she could notice that an extra amount of Rs.14/- levied therein towards cost of a carry bag for containing the purchased goods.   The said carry bag had logo of the said shop which according to her is illegal trade practice and advertisement.  According to her, when the customer goes to purchase any article to the shop house of the O.Ps, if the customer carries any luggage/bag, then the same is to be deposited in the luggage counter of the shop before entering into the said shop.  The price of the carry bag as charged by the O.Ps was nowhere reflected and not even on the body of the carry bag.  Thus the complainant has filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps for payment of a cost of Rs.20,000/- towards her mental harassment and another cost of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses, since because the O.Ps should have provided carry bag for the articles sold by them to any customer.

3.         On the other hand, both the O.Ps have jointly contested this case and have filed their written version wherein they admit about their shop wherefrom the complainant had purchased her articles as averred by her.  It is the contention of the O.Ps that they have displayed/reflected everywhere in their shop house that the customer/consumer should have his/her own bag/luggage to carry the articles purchased from their shop.  As such when the complainant did not have any such bag or luggage to carry her articles she was provided with a bag for the said purpose of course with a consideration as alleged.

4.         Keeping in mind the averments as made by the complainant as well as the O.Ps in their written version, it is necessary here in this case to settle the following issues:

a.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the claim as made by her in her complaint petition against the O.Ps?

b.         Whether the O.Ps are not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the complainant and if they had displayed/reflected that the customer/consumer should have his or her own bag or luggage?

5.         For the sake of convenience issue no.2 to be adjudged first.  While scrutinising the documents as available in this case record, it is noticed that the O.Ps have filed a series of Xerox copies of photographs wherein they have reflected that ‘please bring your own carry bags to save the environment’ both in oriya and English.  On the other hand, the complainant has produced copies of her bill given to her by the O.Ps reflecting the charge levied towards the carry bag to the extent of Rs.14/-.  The O.Ps do not dispute about charging the complainant for the carry bag provided to her by them.  The law is well settled that if the product seller/product manufacturer or service provider has given prior notice to the consumer/customer about payment of charge for the carry bag then in that case the said consumer/customer has no case.  Here in the present case it is the contention of the O.Ps that they had reflected everywhere in their shop drawing attention of the consumers/customers to get their carry bag/luggage for collecting the articles purchased by them.  Now one thing creeps into our mind that if such disclosure/reflection as claimed by the O.Ps was within the knowledge of the consumer/customer (the complainant).   The complainant has denied about the same. Moreso, there is no iota of evidence laid by the O.Ps in order to establish that on the date when the complainant had been to the shop of the O.Ps the disclosure/reflections as claimed by the O.Ps were made in their shop house so as to warrant the attention of the complainant.  In the absence of any evidence in that score, it can never be concluded here in this case that the O.Ps had duly reflected/disclosed about bringing bags to their shop by the customers/consumers on the date when the complainant had been to their shop.  This issue is answered accordingly against the O.Ps.

            That apart, it is the consistent pleading of the complainant that the carry bag sold to her @ Rs.14/- carried the advertisement of the shop of the O.Ps and there is no rebuttal evidence to that effect.  As such, the O.Ps have definitely adopted unfair trade practice with malafide intention by advertising their shop on a bag which they had sold to the complainant.

Issue No:1

From the facts and circumstances and as per the discussions made above, it can safely be concluded here in this case that in fact by charging an extra charge of Rs.14/- to the complainant/consumer is definitely a mental harassment to the said complainant who is a bonafide consumer of the O.Ps.  As such the complainant is entitled to be compensated by the O.Ps for such arbitrary and malafide action made by them to the complainant.

                                                       ORDER

This Commission thus directs both the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) only to the complainant jointly and severally towards the mental harassment caused to her and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) only towards cost of the litigation unnecessarily incurred by the complainant.  This order is to be carried out within a month hence.

            Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 11^th day of April,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Sri Debashis Nayak

                                                                                                                                  President

.

 

                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.