BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.151 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 10.05.2019

      Date of Decision: 21.09.2022

Prikshit Verma aged about 21 years son of Sh. Surinder Verma R/o H. NO.3, Madhuban Colony, Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Vishal Megamart, Jalandhar-3, 38, Bhagwandass Pura, Near    Joshi Hospital, Jalandhar 144001 through its Branch Manager.

2.       Airplaza Retail Holding Pvt. Ltd. C/o 38, Bhagwandass Pura, Near Joshi Hospital, Jalandhar 144001 through its Branch          Manager

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Manit Malhotra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Parminder Singh, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased grocery items from the OP No.1, run by the OP No.2, vide bill NO.4054360001463 dated 21.04.2019 through counter No.5, counter operated by Brijesh Yadav at 19:35 PM. As per the bill item No.3 SBP shopping bag was entered in the bill charging Rs.14/- for one bag and also charging 66 paise tax on the shopping bag. The complainant never purchased the shopping bag and it was the duty of the OPs to supply carry bag to the person who purchased goods from their shop. The complainant objected to the counter manager Brajesh Yadav for adding Rs.14/- for shopping bag and it is against the rules. But the counter incharge conveyed that it is policy of the company i.e. OPs that anybody who purchases has to purchase shopping bag from them or carry goods in their hands. Due to the above said act of the OPs, the complainant suffered mental tension and agony and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund Rs.14/- as cost of shopping bag alongwith interest and pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.11,000/- for litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the OP No.2 is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is inter-alia engaged in the business of operation and management of multi brand retail stores/outlets across the country under the name and style of “Vishal Mega Mart” i.e. OP NO.1 including the store situated at Jalandhar where the alleged incident occurred. It is further averred that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has mislead the Commission by submitting evasive and misleading facts, just to harass the OPs for reasons known best to him. The facts of the complaint are incomplete and misleading and have been carved out in such manner to show that complainant had been forced by the OPs to purchase the Carry Bag @ Rs.14/-. However, the true facts of the case are totally different from the facts concocted and stated by the complainant. It is further averred that the OPs have always endeavored to follow the principles of environment protection in its business practices. Thus, the intent of the OPs is to limit and discourage indiscriminate use of carry bags which are hazardous to our environment and as such, by providing free of cost carry bags to all the customers, the company would be indirectly contributing to worsen the environmental issues, which shall also cause irreparable damage to all flora and fauna. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing the goods alongwith carry bag by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                After going through the contents of the complaint as well as bills, it reveals that the OP has charged Rs.14/- for one carry bag and also charged 066 paise tax on the shopping bag, this factor is very well mentioned in the bill Ex.C-1 issued by OP No.1 to the complainant. We find there is no provision to charge for carry bag rather it is fundamental duty of the seller to provide a bag for carrying the goods to the consumer, without any charges, but in the instant case, the OPs have committed grave negligence as well as unfair trade practice by charging an amount of Rs.14/- for carry bag.

7.                On the other hand,          the OPs have argued that the purchase of the carry bag by the complainant by his own sweet will and desire and as well as a necessity to carry the other goods and commodities purchased by him and never ever forced by the OPs to take the same. Moreover, the buyer/customer is at liberty to bring his own carry bag to carry the goods. The employees of the OPs always offered the option to the customer/buyer for the purchase of the carry bag and it is always upto the sweet will and desire of the customer/buyer to buy the same or not. But the OPs have miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence in the shape of any rules/instructions authorizing it to levy charge additionally for the carry bag from the gullible Consumers. In this backdrop, charges of such things (carry bags) cannot be separately foisted upon the consumers and the same would amount to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Then they should have given the carry bags to the customers free of cost because in our considered view, the price of the carry bag has generally been included by them in the profit margins of the product(s). It was for gain of the opposite party. By employing unfair trade practice, the opposite party is minting lot of money from the innocent customers from all their stores situated across the country. We find there is no provision to charge for carry bag rather it is fundamental duty of the seller to provide a bag for carrying the goods to the consumer, without any charges, but in the instant case, the OPs have committed grave negligence as well as unfair trade practice by charging an amount of Rs.14/- for carry bag and in support of this version, we take an opportunity to refer a pronouncement of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh, decided in Appeal No.98 of 2019, date of Institution 17.05.2019, decided on 22.07.2019, titled as “Bata India Limited Vs. Dinesh Parshad Raturi” and further referred another pronouncement of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh, decided in Appeal No.24 of 2019, date of Institution 01.02.2019, decided on 18.03.2019, titled as “M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Chandgothia etc.” Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi recently has decided 14 Revision Petition Nos.975 to 988 of 2020 which have been disposed off vide common Order dated 22.12.2020 with the Revision Petition No. 975 of 2020 titled “Big Bazaar (Future Retail Limited) Versus Ashok Kumar” being taken as the lead–case. The Hon’ble National Commission in Para No.15 of the said Order has ordered as under:-

                   “The Opposite Party Co. through its Chief Executive is      ordered under Section 39(1)(g) of the Act 2019 [corresponding         Section 14(1)(f) of the Act 1986] to forthwith discontinue its        unfair trade practice of arbitrarily and highhandedly imposing     additional cost of carry bags on the consumer at the time of   making payment, without prominent prior notice and information before the consumer makes his choice of patronizing its retail      outlets and before the consumer makes his selection of goods for      purchase, as also without disclosing the salient specifications         and    price of the carry bags. The necessary notice/signs/           announcement/advertisement/warning should be in the place and manner as may enable the consumer to make his informed choice of whether or not to patronize its retail outlets, and whether or           not to make his selection of goods for purchase from its retail      outlets. The notice or information cannot be at the occasion of        making payment, after the consumer has exercised his choice to      patronize its retail outlet, and after he has made his selection of        goods for purchase.” 

8.                If we see the case of the complainant in the light of above judgments of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh and Hon’ble National Commission, then we can say that the complainant is entitled for the relief and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the price of the carry bag i.e. Rs.14/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase of the goods i.e. 21.04.2019 till realization, to the complainant. Further, OPs are directed to pay compensation including litigation expenses for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

21.09.2022         Member                          Member           President