BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.
Complaint case No.: 249 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 09.08.2019.
Date of decision : 06.11.2019.
Paramjeet Kaur wd/o Late Shri Balbir Singh, r/o 547, Soina Colony, Ambala City, aged about 69 years.
…. Complainant. Versus
Vishal Mega Mart, Ambala-2, House No. 95,96 & 60 Prem Nagar, Ambala City, through its Manager/Managing Director.
..…. Opposite Party
Before: Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.
Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,
Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.
Present: Shri H.S. Baidwan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.
OP ex-parte vide order dated 25.09.2019.
Order: Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’), praying for issuance of following directions to it:-
- To refund Rs.25/-, charged for the carry bag.
- To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment/damages suffered by her.
- To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
-
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a retired School Teacher. She had purchased Grocery items vide Bill No.4045190002290 dated 05.08.2019 amounting Rs.3158.94/- from the OP. After selecting the certain articles from the OP shop, she took the same to the billing counter for making payment, the cashier handed over the said articles without putting them into a carry bag and when she had asked to provide the same, she was told that she had to buy a carry bag. She told the cashier that as per the order of Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh seller cannot charge for carry bag, but he said that as per company policy the buyer has to pay for the carry bag. Since, it was not possible to carry all the grocery items without carry bags, therefore, she left with no other option and had purchased two carry bags for Rs.25/-, (Rs.12.50/- each). By levying charge additionally for the carry bags to carry the purchased goods, from the consumers, the OP indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP before this Forum, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.09.2019.
3. The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and carefully gone through the case file.
5. Annexure C-1 is the copy of invoice, whereby, the complainant had purchased Grocery items for an amount of Rs.3158.94/- from the OP on 05.08.2019. The learned counsel for complainant contended that the OP did not provide the carry bags to carry the articles purchased by the complainant and told her to purchase two carry bags. The complainant was forced to purchase two carry bags for Rs.25/- (Rs.12.50/- each). By not providing the carry bag free of cost to carry the purchased goods, the OP has indulged into unfair trade practice. This contention of the learned counsel for the complainant has gone unrebutted as the OP instead of contesting the case has preferred not to appear before this Forum. Thus, we have no option but to accept the version of the complainant, which is duly supported by her affidavit and other supporting documents. From the copy of invoice (Annexure C-1), it is apparent that the OP had charged Rs.25/- (Rs.12.50/- each) for the two carry bags from the complainant. In the absence of any provisions of law/rules/regulations, it cannot be said that the OP can levy charge additionally for the carry bag from the gullible Consumers. Thus, the OP by forcing the consumers to pay additionally for the carry bag has indulged into unfair trade practices. In the case of M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Chandgothia and others, 2019 (2) CLT 410 (CHD), the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh has held that “A person who buys some articles/products from the shop premises like the appellant/OP is expected to be provided with free carry bag to carry those articles or he or she should be allowed to bring his or her carry bag inside the premises. OP failed to show any provisions of law/rules/regulations, which give such an authority to the appellant/OP, not to allow the customers to bring their own carry bag inside the premises of the appellant/OP. Not only above, the carry bags which are sold by the appellant/OP bear its logo on both sides and the customer, who is buying the same is in fact publicizing the brand of the appellant/OP and thereby becomes a brand ambassador. On the other hand, charging for the same paper carry bag by the appellant/OP amounted to unfair trade practise.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-
- To refund the amount of Rs.25/- extra charged for the carry bags.
- To pay Rs.1,500/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
- To pay Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses.
The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
Announced on :05.11.2019.
(Vinod Kumar Sharma) (Ruby Sharma) (Neena Sandhu)
Member Member President
