Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/779/2019

Shiti Dutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

Westside - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	779/ 2019
Date of Institution	:	20.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	12.02.2020

 

                                       

                                               

Shiti Dutt w/o Sh.Gautam Dutt r/o H.No.2163, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh 160022.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

Westside, Plot No.28, Next to HDFC, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh 160002 through its Proprietor/ Management /Authorized Signatory.

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE:

SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by

Complainant in person.

                Sh.Animesh Sharma, Adv. for the OP

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         By dint of this common order, we propose to dispose of the following two (2) connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved:-

1	2	3	4
Sr. No.	C.C. No.	Complainant’s Name	Cost of Paper Carry Bag (in Rs.)
	779/2019	Shiti Dutt	28/- (3 Carry bags)
	780/2019	Shiti Dutt	10/-  (One carry bag)

2.         The facts are gathered from Consumer Complaint No.779/2019- Shiti Dutt Vs.  Westside.
3.           The facts of the case as alleged by the complainant is that on 10.05.2018 she did shopping of Rs.35,624/- from the shop of the OP. She was shocked to see the invoice that the OP had charged a sum of Rs.28/- on account of three carry bags (two large and one small) to carry away the items.  She objected to charging of the carry bags as it should be provided free of cost because when a person purchases so many things from a shop then she is not expected to carry the items in  hand.   It has further been averred that she was not allowed to carry her own carry bag in the showroom so how she is expected to carry the items purchased by her.  Inspite of her repeated requests, the OP had refused to return the amount charged for the carry bag and she was forced to pay for it.  It has further been averred that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service as also indulged into unfair trade practice by charging for the paper carry bag. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
4.         In its written statement, the OP while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that  the complainant was never coerced into buying the shopping bag. She was duly informed at the billing counter that she would be charged a sum of Rs.28/- for three bags and she willingly purchased the carry bags.  It has further been pleaded that after the directions passed in C.C. No.371/2018- Sapna Vasudeva Vs. Westside, by the Chandigarh District Forum  vide its order dated 18.1.20019, the OP had stopped selling the carry bags to customers and has been provided such bags free of costs ever since.  The OP had challenged the said order dated 18.01.2019 before the Hon’ble State Commission in an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2019.  Subsequently, the OP had filed the R.P.No.1948 of 2019   titled as Westside Vs. Sapna Vasudev seeking quashing of the orders dated 08.04.2019 ad 18.01.2019.  It has further been pleaded that the Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dated 29.08.2019 has stayed  the operation of the impugned order so far it directs the petitioner(OP) to provide free carry bags to all customers forthwith, who purchase articles from its shop.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant had made the purchase on 10.05.2018 i.e. almost a year before  the order restraining the OP from selling carry bags was passed. It has further been pleaded that the company intends to encourage its customers to carry re-usable bags and reduce the consumption of paper bags, thereby contributing to a positive impact on the environment and with this purpose in mind, the OP had been charging for its paper bags. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OP and have gone through the documents on record.
6.          At the time of arguments, Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party has fairly conceded that the Opposite Party after the directions passed vide order dated 18.01.2019 in C.C. No.371/2018- Sapna Vasudeva Vs. Westside”, has stopped charging for the carry bags. Since the OP has apologized for its mistake and stopped charging for the paper carry bags and has remorse and repentant on its mistake, therefore, we think that if somebody learnt a lesson then a lenient view should be taken qua that person. Keeping in view the same, we deem it proper not to impose any punitive costs upon the Opposite Party.
7.        In view of the above discussion, both the consumer complaints deserve to be accepted against the Opposite Party and the same are accordingly allowed qua it. The Opposite Party is directed:-
   1. to refund the cost of carry bag as mentioned at column No.4 of the above table to the complainant.
   2. to pay Rs.100/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony in each complaint.  Compensation imposed on lower side as mental agony of parting with the price of the carry bag could only be caused to this extent.
   3. to pay Rs.500/- as litigation expenses in each complaint.      
8.         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.(i) to (iii) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order, till its realization.
9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12.02.2020                                                             

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER