Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 334.
Instituted on : 12.07.2019.
Decided on : 27.01.2021.
Natrapal s/o Sh. Kanwar Singh, Chamber no.383, District court, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Vishal Megamart, Sonepat Road Rohtak through its Manager/Proprietor.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Vikram Singh Ohlan, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased some domestic items on dated 01.07.2019 from the opposite party and he was having his own bag to carry the alleged items but despite refusal of the complainant, opposite party given a bag and charged Rs.12.50/- for the same. Due to the alleged illegal act of the opposite party, complainant suffered mental agony and harassment. Opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for giving the alleged bag forcefully to the complainant. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the price of bag i.e. Rs.12.50/- alongwith compensation of Rs.25000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written reply. Opposite party has denied the fact that complainant was forced to purchase the carry bag in question. It is submitted that opposite party has displayed at the entry gate of its store, that the customers can bring their own empty carry bags to carry the goods purchased from the store and thereby inviting customers to bring their own empty carry bags inside the store for the goods purchased from the store. The opposite party is not liable to provide free carry bags to all the consumers who purchase the goods from its store. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P2 and closed his evidence on dated 26.11.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on dated 10.02.2020.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the bill placed on record as Ex.P1, opposite party had charged Rs.12.50/- from the complainant on account of shopping bag. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, he did not need any bag as he was having his own bag with him but the opposite party had forced the complainant to purchase the carry bag. Hence the charging of alleged amount of carry bag from the complainant is illegal. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that opposite party never forced the complainant to purchase the alleged carry bag but the carry bags are available at the store on chargeable basis. The complainant purchased the same from the store, hence he was charged Rs.12.5 for the same. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance upon the law laid-down in CC No.252/2019 decided by DCDRF(Central) at Delhi, Himanshi Saini Vs. Westside(FA/493/2019) decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi, Mr.Calvet Gonsalves Vs. Vishal Megal Mart decided by DCDRF, South Goa, Radha Krishan Vs. Big Bazaar decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi and Vikas Sharma Vs. Vishal Mega Mart decided by Hon’ble State Commission Raipur, Chhatisgarh.
6. On the other hand, we have placed reliance upon the order dated 22.10.2020 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petitions No.(975 to 988) of 2020 titled as Big Bazaar(Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar etc. whereby Hon’ble National Commission has upheld the order of District Forum as well as State commission, whereby the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party was determined. The alleged law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case whereas judgments cited above by ld. Counsel for the opposite party are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund Rs.12.50/-(Rupees twelve and fifty paise only), to pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which the amounts awarded will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization to the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
27.01.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
…………………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member.
