Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/338/2020

Parminder Kaur D/o Daljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Zudio A unit of trent Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Sanghwan

01 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    338 of 2020.

                                                                   Date of institution:         22.09.2020.

                                                                   Date of decision:  01.06.2022

 

Parminder Kaur d/o Shri Daljit Singh, r/o H.No.243, Sector-5, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

Zudio A Unit of Trent Ltd., near Metro Cash N Carry, Zirakpur, through its Authorized Officer.

2^nd address: Zudio, Chandigarh Citi Centre, Citi Centre Developers, VIP Road, near Metro Cash N Carry, Zirakpur, Punjab-140603, through its Authorized Officer/representative.

...Respondent.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Vikas Sagwan, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite Party ex-parte, vide order dated 06.04.2022.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “Act”).

2.                By way of complaint in hand, complainant alleged that she visited the showroom of OP on 17.04.2019 to purchase some readymade clothes. She purchased different items total amount to Rs.1804/- and after billing, she made the payment from her Credit Card and then the official of OP made the demand of Rs.10/- from her for carry bag. The complainant was having her own carry bag, for which, she was not allowed to carry the same and the official forced her to pay the cost of carry bag. However, it is pertinent to mention here that cost of carry bag was not added in the bill, which was a clear cut case of unfair trade practice. She reported the matter to the senior officials of OP, but they had not paid any heed to her request. It was not the matter of Rs.10/- only, rather, the matter was related to the prestige and honour of the customers and general public. The act and conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in services as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, constraining her to file the present complaint against the OP, before this Commission.

3.                On receipt of complaint, its notice was ordered to be issued against the OP, through registered post, which was put into transit on 14.3.2022. The said notice was delivered upon OP on 17.03.2022, as per Track Consignment Report, but OP failed to appear before this Commission, either, in person or through any advocate on 06.04.2022 and ultimately, it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte on that date, by this Commission.         

4.                 In order to support her case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed the same.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the case file carefully.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that on 17.04.2019 the complainant purchased different items total amount to Rs.1804/- from the OP and after billing, she made the payment from her Credit Card and then the official of OP made the demand of Rs.10/- from her for carry bag. The complainant was having her own carry bag, for which, she was not allowed to carry the same and the official forced her to pay the cost of carry bag. It is further argued that cost of carry bag was not added in the bill, which was a clear cut case of unfair trade practice. The complainant reported the matter to the senior officials of OP, but they had not paid any heed to her request. The act and conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in services as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

7.                The moot question before this Commission is whether charging of Rs.10/-, by the OP, from the complainant, as price of carry bag, on purchasing of different items by her, is an act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, resulting to harassment, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant?

8.                From the Tax Invoice Ex.C2/Ex.C3, it is apparent that on 17.04.2019, complainant purchased some items from the OP amounting Rs.1804/- and the OP charged Rs.10/- for Paper Carry bag from the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that the OP charged cost of Rs.10/- for carry bag in the bill, which is an act of unfair trade practice. It is well settled law, on purchasing of any item from the seller, the seller to deliver the same to the complainant properly in its own packing. Imposing of charges of carry bag, by the OP, is an act of unfair trade practice on its part, resulting to harassment, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Moreover, the OP preferred not to appear before this Commission to rebut the above said version of the complainant, so, the OP has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent/convincing evidence in the shape of any rules/instructions authorizing it to levy charge additionally for the carry bag from the gullible Consumers. Thus, we have no option but to accept the version of the complainant, which is duly supported by her affidavit and other supporting documents. Our view is also fully supported by the case law titled M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Chandgothia and others, 2019 (2) CLT 410 (CHD), wherein, the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh has held that “A person who buys some articles/products from the shop premises like the appellant/OP is expected to be provided with free carry bag to carry those articles or he or she should be allowed to bring his or her carry bag inside the premises. OP failed to show any provisions of law/rules/regulations, which give such an authority to the appellant/OP, not to allow the customers to bring their own carry bag inside the premises of the appellant/OP. Not only above, the carry bags which are sold by the appellant/OP bear its logo on both sides and the customer, who is buying the same is in fact publicizing the brand of the appellant/OP and thereby becomes a brand ambassador. On the other hand, charging for the same paper carry bag by the appellant/OP amounted to unfair trade practise. 

9.                Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down by the superior Fora in the aforesaid case and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the charging of amount of carry bag, by the OP, from the complainant as well as from general public, is an act of unfair trade practice and for which, the OP, apart from refund of Rs.10/- to the complainant, also penalized for compensation and litigation expenses.

10.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the cost of carry bag of Rs.10/- to the complainant. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to an act of unfair trade practise, on the part of the OP, along with Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the total award amount of Rs.5010/- shall carry on interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization, and the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Act, against the OP. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Dated:01.06.2022.     

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.