Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/484/2018

Ms. Sapna Vasudeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

Westside - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Chandgothia

03 May 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/484/2018
Date of Institution	:	03/10/2018
Date of Decision	:	03/05/2019

 

Sapna Vasudev D/o Late Shri P.K. Vasudeva, R/o H.No.634, Sector 10, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

Westside, a unit of Trent Limited, Elante Mall, 178-178A, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002, through its Store Manager.

…… Opposite Party

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Sapna Vasudeva, Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

PER Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         In brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant selected and purchased a dress from the OP-Shop and took the same to the billing counter for making necessary payment. At the Counter, the Cashier handed over the said dress put in a paper carry bag bearing advertisement of ‘LANDMARK’ in big letters, which is a brand in itself and distinct from Westside. On reaching home, the Complainant checked the bill/invoice and was shocked to see that the Opposite Party had charged Rs.10/- for the bag. It has been alleged that the Complainant had not agreed to purchase any such item and in the entire Shop premises, it was nowhere mentioned that the Opposite Party would charge for a carry bag also. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party contested the Complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that after the ban of Plastic bags by the Government, answering Opposite Party is encouraging its customers to bring their own shopping bags and also offer paper bags to its customers on their request at nominal charges. The Complainant was aware with the fact that answering Opposite Party charges nominal price for the paper carry bag. It has been asserted that the price of the carry bag was disclosed on the surface of the same and was duly mentioned in the invoice as well. The Complainant was not compelled to purchase or take the carry bag from the Opposite Party. The Complainant had an option to carry her own reusable bag, if she intended to purchase the products from the store. It has been urged that ‘LANDMARK’ is also one of the format operated by the answering Opposite Party which is being operated from the same premises. The Complainant was also aware of the said fact. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein she has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party.
7.         The factum of providing paper bags to its customers, on payment of additional price, has not been disputed before us at all. It has been contended by the Complainant that it was nowhere mentioned in the entire Shop premises that the Opposite Party would charge for a carry bag. This fact has neither been admitted nor refuted by the Opposite Party in its written version. At any rate, the Opposite Party has 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.
8.         The Opposite Party has urged that the carry bag was given to the Complainant only upon confirmation from her with respect to the purchase of the paper bag. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as if the Cashier informed the Complainant about the purchase of carry bag before billing, the same amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as it would have been very odd and inconvenient for Complainant to carry the new garments in hand throughout without a carry bag. In this backdrop, charges of such things (paper bags) cannot be separately foisted upon the consumers and would amount to overcharging.
9.         The Opposite Party has also argued that post ban of plastic bags, it started providing paper bags to its customers on payment of its price. However, we feel that banning of a product does not entitle the Opposite Party to charge for its substitute and the Opposite Party and all other shops like it are obliged to provide carry bags free of cost to carry the purchased items to their customers, as the customers cannot be expected to carry the items in hands.
10.         It is noteworthy that said carry bag for which the Complainant had to shell out extra amount from her pocket, is a printed carry bag, which has a prominent display of the advertisement of one of the format operated by the Opposite Party and is thus apparently serving as an advertisement for it, whenever the said bag is carried by the Consumer. In this manner, the Complainant and other gullible consumers like her has certainly been taken for a ride by the Opposite Party for advertising its name. Undoubtedly, the Opposite Party has several stores across the country and in the above said manner, made lot of money, thus, the act of Opposite Party by forcing the gullible consumers to pay additionally for the paper bags is surely and certainly amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice.
11.         The sequence of the events of the present case, clearly establishes the high headedness of the Opposite Party of which the complainant became the victim and felt the burnt, as a result the complainant has been left with no alternative, except to knock the doors of this Forum, which further aggravated her pain & harassment. Thus, on this account, we deem it proper to penalize the Opposite Party for indulging in such activity, thereby causing not only loss, mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, but also giving rise to undesirable litigation and thereby wasting the precious time of this Forum. Therefore, the Opposite Party is penalized with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.
12.         In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Party is directed:-

(i)     To provide free carry bags to all customers forthwith who purchase articles from its Shop;

 

(ii)    To refund to the Complainant the amount of Rs.10/- wrongly charged for the paper carry bag;

(iii)   To pay Rs.1,500/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.

 

(iv)   To pay Rs.1,500/- as litigation expenses.      

  

   (v)    To deposit Rs.10,000/- in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.

 

                This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall be liable to pay the amount at Sr.No.(ii) to (iv) to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till its realization, besides compliance of directions as at Sr.No.(i). The amount mentioned at Sr.No.(v) be deposited in the account aforesaid, within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the same will carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till its deposit. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary (SCDRC), U.T. Chandigarh, for necessary action.

13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/05/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”