Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 52
Instituted on : 24.01.2020.
Decided on : 19.09.2022.
Renu Jangra aged-32 yrs. w/o Sh. Manjeet, resident of VPO Anwal, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Vishal Mega Mart, office at 136/22, D.S.Plaza, Rohtak-Sonipat Road, Vikas Nagar Rohtak through its Manager/Prop./Principal Officer.
- Vishal Mega Mart Pvt. Ltd., Head Office at Plot No. 184, Platinum Tower, 5th Floor, Udhyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Phase-I, near Rolta Tower, Gurugram (Haryana), through its Manager/Prop./ Principal Officer.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Naresh Siwach, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Vikram Singh Ohlan, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased domestic items from the opposite party no.1 on dated 24.12.2019 for a sum of Rs.1190/- and when she saw the bill, she was surprised to know that opposite party has charged Rs.18/- for carry bag from the complainant. It is the responsibility of the respondents to handover the purchased articles in carry bag to customers free of cost, but the respondent has illegally charged Rs.18/- from the complainant as cost of carry bag, which is quite illegal and against the well settled business principles. The complainant approached the officials of opposite party and requested them to disburse the compensation in his favour but after repeated requests the opposite party did not disburse the amount of claim. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.18/- as cost of carry bag and also be directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment as well as an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has denied the fact that complainant was forced to purchase the carry bag in question. The complainant was made well aware by the employee of the company, who was on duty to use her own carry bag, in case complainant does not wish to purchase the carry bag from the store/outlet of the company. The complainant purchased the bag for Rs.18/- on her own will and desire and there was no force/coercion on her to buy the said carry bag. It is submitted that opposite party has displayed at the billing counter and also at various places of its store, that the customers may purchase the carry bags of different variants as per their requirements, which are available at the Store at different prices. It is also submitted that opposite party has also 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. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that opposite party No.1 is the company which operates multiple retails outlets/stores in the name and style of “Vishal Mega Mart” across the county and opposite party No.2 has no role in operation and management of Vishal Mega Mart Stores including the Store situated at Rohtak. The present complaint against the opposite party no.2 amounts to nothing but absolute misjoinder of party as the complainant allegedly purchased the products/items from Vishal Mega Mart Store situated at Rohtak which is operated and managed by opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 has no role/concern with operation and management of store or conduct of opposite party No.1. The alleged transaction has been held between the complainant and opposite party No.1. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed qua opposite party No.2 with costs.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex. CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on dated 16.12.2021. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex. RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on dated 19.07.2022.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. As per the bill placed on record as Ex.C1, opposite party No.1 had charged Rs.18/- from the complainant on account of shopping bag. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, it is submitted that it is the prime duty of the opposite party to provide carry/shopping bag free of cost to the complainant and other customers. Hence the charging of alleged amount of carry bag from the complainant is illegal. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon judgments of Hon’ble State Commission, U.T.Chandigarh in Appeal No.98 of 2019 decided on 17.05.2019 Bata India Vs. Dinesh Parshad, Appeal No.59 of 2020 decided on 30.09.2021, titled as M/s Trends Reliance Retail Ltd. Vs. Reema Beri On the other hand ld. counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance upon the complaint No.no.251/2018 decided by DCDRF(Central) ISBT Kashmere Gate Delhi, titled as Radhakrishnan R. Vs. Westside , Karol Bagh, CC no.68/2019 decided by CDRF South Goa at Margao, titled as Mr. Calvert Gonsalves Vs. Air- Plaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd.-III(Vishal Mega Mart), First Appeal No.493/2019 decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi titled as Himanshi Saini Vs. Westside, Appeal No.FA/15/149 decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Raipur Chhatisgarh Vikash Sharma Vs. M/s Vishal Megal Mart, CC no. 115/2018 decided by DCDRF Kangra at Dharamshala(HP) titled as Sh. Anil Sharma Vs. Big Bazar through CEO/MD.
7. We have gone through the judgments cited above by both the parties and have also 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 and the judgments cited above by ld. Counsel for the complainant are 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. It is also observed that opposite party No.1 has failed to prove its case that the carry bag was separately purchased by the complainant of his own free will. Hence the opposite party has illegally charged Rs.18/- for providing the carry bag from the complainant and there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to refund Rs.18/-(Rupees eighteen 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 opposite party No.1 shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.1018/- from the date of order till its realization to the complainant.
9. 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:
19.09.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
