Delhi

StateCommission

A/493/2019

HIMANSHI SAINI - Complainant(s)

Versus

WESTSIDE - Opp.Party(s)

15 Oct 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :15.10.2019

Date of Decision : 18.10.2019

FIRST APPEAL NO.493/2019

In the matter of:

 

Himanshi Saini,

D/o. Shri M.S. Saini,

13 First Floor,

Gautam Nagar,

New Delhi-110049.………Appellant

 

Versus

 

           

1. Westside,

(A Unit of Trent Ltd.),

Through its Managing Director & CEO,

A-15 Feroze Gandhi Road,

New Delhi-110024.

 

Also at:

Registered Office:

Bombay House,

24, Homi Mody Street,

1.  

 

2. Trent Ltd.,

Trent House,

G-Block, Plot No.C-60,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra (East),

1.  

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. Complainant is aggrieved by order dated 20.08.19 passed by District Forum vide which his complaint was dismissed in limine. The facts are quite disgusting. The appellant purchased a pair of white colour shoes for Rs.1,671/- including Rs.6 /- as charges for the paper carry bag from respondent no.1. The bag was carrying advertisement of respondent no.1, appellant requested for a bag without advertisement of respondent no.1, respondent no.1 insisted on providing a carry bag with its advertisement. Appellant did not want to pay for advertisement bag of respondent but respondent did not listen to her view point. She paid Rs.6/- for the carry bag under protest. The same is deficiency in service. Hence she filed a complaint for directing respondent no.1 to pay Rs.6/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for physical and mental harassment, Rs.25,000/- for litigation expenses.
2. The District Forum observed that appellant failed to show any provision under which it was mandatory for respondent no.1 to provide carry bag to its customer. The appellant could have carried the shoes without a carry bag. Earlier the carry bag were mostly made of plastic which is not for safe for environment. Environment conscious citizens prefer to take their cloth bags while shopping. It is not the case of the appellant that she was compelled to buy a carry bag.
3. The District Forum further found that in Nagpur in 2014 the price for plastic carry bag was Rs.5/-. Nagpur Municipal Corporation  issued a notification stating that nominal charge of Rs.5/- for a bag did not discourage the use  of such bag. Therefore it permitted charging of Rs.8/- for bag.
4.  In another experiment  carried out by Sanjay Nagar in Bangluru, in December, 2014 several shop keepers signed up a programme called ‘rent a bag’ under which shopping bags were given to the purchaser who did not come with their own bags at no cost. The purchaser had to deposit Rs.5/- for small bag and Rs.20/- for large bag. On returning the bag  to the shop keeper, purchaser could  collect the deposit. This programme was introduced with a goal to reduce plastic waste and to encourage people to carry their own bags while shopping.
5. The shop keeper is not under obligation to supply carry bags and that too without any cost. Suppose a person purchased vegitable worth Rs.50/-, he cannot except the vendor to give a carry bag of Rs.10/- free of cost.
6. The appellant relied upon decision of State Commission U.T. Chandigarh in Appeal No.36/19 titled as Westside vs. Sapna  Vasudev decided on 08.04.19. I have gone through the same. The plastic Waste Management and handling Rules 2011 have not been made available by the appellant for perusal by this Commission. Any amendment thereto in 2018 which allegedly altered the definition of carry bag has also not been made available. In any event I am not persuaded by the order.
7. Consumer Protection Act is meant for saving consumer from being exploited. It is not meant for wind fall or making purchaser millionaire over night. In this regard reliance can be placed on decision of National Commission in FA-847/2017 titled as Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta Vs. Vodafone east limited. 
8. The appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.
9. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
10. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
11. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

•