Haryana

Ambala

CC/188/2019

Kiran Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Zudio - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Mundan

17 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  188 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           :    03.06.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    :    17.01.2020.

 

Kiran Chaudhary w/o Shri Munish Kumar, aged about 40 years R/o H.No.264, Sector 49, Gurugram.

                                                                                       …. Complainant.                                                   Versus

Zudio A unit of Trent limited 45, INCO CBD Plot No.2, Modal Town, Ambala City, through its Manager/Managing Director.

 

               ..…. Opposite Party

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Pawan Mundan, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Ankit Virmani, Advocate and Shri Krishan Tewary,         Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’), praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To refund Rs.7/- charged for the carry bag.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation charges.
   382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that on 28.04.2019, the complainant had purchased some clothes, vide bill No. GSLZ45001002319 from the OP for a sum of Rs.3,049/-. At the counter, the cashier handed over the said clothes without putting them into a carry bag and when complainant asked to provide the same, she was told that she had to buy it for Rs.7/-. In the entire shop premises, it was nowhere mentioned that the OP would charge for a paper carry bag also. No option left, she paid Rs.7/- additionally for the said carry bag. The OP is advertising its brand by printing its logo on the bags and the cost of carry bag is paid by the consumer which is not justified in any manner. By charging Rs.7/- for the carry bag for carrying purchased goods  the OP has not only committed deficiency in service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared through its counsel and filed written version stating therein that the complaint is entirely misconceived, frivolous and an attempt to illegally extract money from the OP. As an eco-friendly initiative, with a view to promote use of reusable carry bags by customers and to reduce consumption of paper bags, the OP was selling carry bags at the cash counter of the store for a nominal price of Rs.7/-. There was never any compulsion on any customer to buy a carry bag from the OP and the customers are free to carry the purchased items in their own bag or without a bag. Before generating any invoice, the cashier do ask the customers, as to whether they require carry bag then same is available for Rs.7/-. Furthermore, the cost of the carry bag has been mentioned on the carry bag itself.  Every bill issued by the OP is fully transparent and contains item-wise specific charges for each item purchased at the store. There is no contract with the customer to provide a carry bag, free of costs to carry the purchased items. No person, including any retailer such as the OP can be compelled to part with or give away its property for free. There is no such law, which forces OP to transfer ownership of any of its property to any third party for free. The OP has incurred cost in procuring the carry bags, and it would wholly unjust, unfair and unreasonable to compel it to give the same, free of costs. OP always allow its customers to bring their own carry bags in the store. No additional amount has been charged from the complainant. There is neither any deficiency in service on its part nor has indulged into unfair trade practice. Therefore, the present complaint may be dismissed with heavy costs.  

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered documents Annexure OP-1 & OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP.  

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased some clothes from the OP and the cashier handed over the same without putting them into carry bag. Complainant requested the cashier to provide a carry bag, but he told her that, if she needs a carry bag then she has to pay for it. The complainant asked the cashier, under which rule or regulation the OP is selling carry bag, but cashier failed to explain about the same. Under compelling circumstances, she purchased a carry bag for Rs.7/- to carry the clothes purchased from the OP. By selling the carry bag, the OP has not only committed deficiency in service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. In support of his contention the Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon case law titled as M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Chandgothia and others, 2019 (2) CLT 410 (CHD),  the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/OP 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.

                             On the contrary, the Ld. counsel for the OP has argued that there is no law which requires retailers including OP to provide carry bag for free. Even there is no law which prohibits the OP to print its logo or name on the carry bag. Furthermore, the OP procure carry bags for consideration and it is not supposed to be given free of cost. It was well displayed in the showroom that bring a bag or buy a paper bag. Even the cashier before raising the bill do ask the customers, if they need a carry bag, then they have to pay for it. Since, the OP was not bound to provide the carry bag for free, and by charging Rs.7/- for the carry bag it has neither committed deficiency in service nor indulged into unfair trade practice. He further argued that the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition No.1948 of 2019, in the case of Westside, a Unit of Trent Limited Versus Sapna Vasudev, has stayed the operation of the order dated 08.04.2019, of the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, in appeal No.36 of 2019, with regard to the direction to the petitioner to provide free carry bag to all customers forthwith, who purchases articles from its shop. Even, in the case of Bata India Limited Versus Dinesh Parshad Raturi, Revision Petition No.1715 of 2019, the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, has also stayed the operation of the order dated 22.07.2019, of the Hon’ble State Commission, passed in Appeal No.98 of 2019. He further submitted that units of the Westside and Zudio are owned by TATA Group of Companies. Matter pertaining to Westside, a Unit of Trent Limited has already been stayed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi. Therefore, the order of the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T. is nullified for the nonce i.e. till the appeal is disposed of and has not attained finality till yet and remains in abeyance. Furthermore, in the case of Himanshi Saini Versus Westside and another, First Appeal No.493 of 2019, decided on 18.10.2019, the Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi while dismissing the appeal in limine has held that shopkeeper is not under obligation to supply carry bags and that too without any cost. Suppose a person purchase vegetable worth Rs.50/-, he cannot accept a vendor to give a carry bag of Rs.10/- free of costs. As such, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed, being devoid of merits.  

6.                The complainant has pleaded that the OP by not providing the carry bag for free, to carry the goods purchased from it, has not only committed deficiency in service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. However, she has failed to prove under which Law/Rule, it is compulsory for the OP to provide a carry bag to the customers free of costs and prohibits it from advertising its logo or name on such carry bags. There is no obligation on the part of the OP to supply carry bag free of cost. Even, there is no agreement between the parties under which the OP is debarred from charging price for the carry bag. Carry bags are not available free in the market and charging for the carry bag is not prohibited under any Rule or Law. The OP has stated through its written version and affidavit that it has put up a notice for the consumers to bring their own carry bags and if they do not bring any, then they can purchase the same. According, to the complainant the OP had initially supplied the goods to her without a carry bag and told her beforehand that, if she needs one, she could be supplied on payment. Knowing all these facts fully well the complainant asked for a carry bag which was given to her on her own demand. The price charged was the same i.e. Rs.7/- which was told to her beforehand. It is therefore, not a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Realizing the price of the goods (i.e. carry bag) by the OP cannot be said to be deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

7.                In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the complaint, accordingly we dismiss the same without any order as to costs. 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.

Announced on :17.01.2020

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                            Member                            President