Punjab

Sangrur

CC/219/2019

Parvesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vishal Mega Mart - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Parul Chawla

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                         Complaint No. 219

 Instituted on:   22.05.2019

                                                                        Decided on:     20.03.2023

 

Parvesh Kumar aged about 30 years son of Sh. Jagdeesh Kumar R/O Ward No.20, Near Hanuman Mandir, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur. Mob.No.94656-78699.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Vishal Mega Mart, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its Manager.

2.             Airplaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 184, Platinum Tower, 5^th Floor, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area Phase-I Gurgaon, Haryana 122016 through its Manager.

             ….Opposite parties 

 

For the complainant    : Shri Parul Chawla, Adv. 

For  OPs                   : Exparte.

 

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

                        JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant on 1.5.2019 visited the store of OP number 1 and purchased a pair of baby suit vide  bill/invoice number 4043060002259 dated 1.5.2019 and paid an amount of Rs.189/- by way of cash payment.  Further case of complainant is that after returning home, he noted that OP number 1 charged Rs.10/- for carry bag, whereas the carry bag was to be provided free of cost. Even the consent of complainant for providing carry bag on payment was not taken.  Though the complainant requested the OPs to refund the amount of carry bag, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency  in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.10/- so  charged by the complainant and further to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and  harassment and an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by Ops, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has misconceived this Commission and that the complaint is devoid of any merit and reasoning and complaint should be dismissed.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant visited OP number 1 on 1.5.2019 and charging of Rs.10/- being the cost of carry bag is also admitted and that the complainant was made aware by the Store executive at the sale counter about the charges for different variants of the carry bags and also informed the complainant of the option to use his own carry bag in case the complainant does not wish to purchase the carry bag from the said store. It is further stated that the said carry bag was billed only upon the willful affirmation/ free consent extended by the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant had purchased the carry bag for Rs.10/- with his free will and no part of the complaint has been admitted.

3.             In support of the case, the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 bill, Ex.C-2 envelope and Ex.C-3 affidavit of complainant. On the other hand, the OPs have not produced any evidence. Further record shows that the OPs did not appear on many occasions and on 11.11.2022 they were proceeded against exparte.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on file. 

5.             The learned counsel for complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant on 1.5.2019 visited the store of OP number 1 and purchased a pair of baby suit and paid an amount of Rs.189/- by way of cash payment, copy of cash memo on record is Ex.C-1.  Further learned counsel for complainant has contended that after returning home, he noted that OP number 1 charged Rs.10/- for carry bag, whereas the carry bag was to be provided free of cost. Even the consent of complainant for providing carry bag on payment was not taken.

6.             In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit wherein whole of the story of the complainant has been corroborated, whereas Ex.C-1 is the bill which clearly reveals that the OP number 1 has charged an amount of Rs.10/- being the cost of carry bag. Ex.C-2 is carry bag.

7.             To support the contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd) versus Sahil Dawar decided on 22.12.2020, wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission “that it may be stated here that, once we have already held that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller, as such, the contention raised does not merit acceptance. Even otherwise, as per contention raised by counsel for the appellant, on the one hand, purchase of carry bags is made optional and voluntarily but at the same time, the consumer/customer is not allowed to enter the shop with their own carry bags containing some goods purchased from other shop premises. We cannot expect that for every single item/article intended to be purchased by a customer, he/she needs to carry separate carry bags. For e.g. if a customer wants to purchase, say about 15 in number, daily-use goods/articles like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad, soap, toothpaste, shaving cream, pen, pencil etc. from different shops, we cannot expect him/her to take 15 carry bags from home, for the same.  Thus, by now allowing the customers to carry their own carry bags by the appellant in its premises, there was no option left with them to buy the carry bags alongwith the goods purchased, to carry the same from the shop premises.  We are shocked to note the kind of services provided by these big Malls/showrooms. One cannot be expected to take the goods like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., purchased in hands. By not allowing the customers to bring in the shop premises, their own carry bags, and  thrusting its own carry bags against consideration, the appellant is deficient in providing service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. No case is made out to reverse the findings of the respective District Forum in each appeal.” As such, we find that the Ops have wrongly charged an amount of Rs.10/- for the carry bag from the complainant, which is a clear cut case of deficient in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.                 

8.             As a result of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.10/- so charged for the carry bag and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- as consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.            A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                March 20, 2023.