Haryana

Ambala

CC/147/2019

Mehak Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Zudio - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  147 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution  :  01.05.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    :  03.02.2020.

 

Mehak Aggarwal daughter of Shri Arvind Kumpar, aged about 20 years, resident of Sector-1, Ambala City.

                                                                                       …. Complainant.                                                   Versus

Zudio, INCO CBD Plot 2, Model Town, Ambala City-134003.

 

               ..…. Opposite Party

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Complainant in person.

Shri Ankit Virmani, Advocate, along with 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.5/-, wrongly charged for the paper carry bag alongwith interest at the market rate from the date of the bill to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her.
   382.  

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

 

Brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.2019, the complainant had purchased some cloths, from the OP for a sum of Rs.898/-. OP charged an additional amount of Rs.5/- for a paper carry bag for carrying the articles purchased from it. Complainant paid a total amount of Rs.903/- (Rs.898/- +Rs.5/-). OP by charging an additional amount for a carry bag, bearing the name of the store on it, is simply using it as an advertisement agent, for which complainant has to shell out extra amount. Complainant had even wrote a email to the Company for refunding the additional amount of Rs.5/- and to further stop charging additional amount for a paper carry bag to carry the articles purchased from its stores, but all in vain. In this manner, the OP had not only committed deficiency in service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice also. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared through its counsel and filed written version stating therein that complainant had failed to bring on record any document to establish that the complainant had purchased any article of clothing 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.5/-. There was never any compulsion on any customer to buy a carry bag from the OP and the customers were free to carry the purchased items in their own bag or without a bag. Before generating any invoice, the cashier did ask the customers as to whether they require carry bag then same is available for Rs.5/-. 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. The OP has incurred cost in procuring the carry bags, and it would be 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.                Rejoinder to the written version filed by the OP, stating therein that the OP by forcing the gullible consumers to pay additionally for the paper bags to carry the items purchased from it is surely and certainly amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice. It is no where displayed in the shop premises of the OP either at the entry gate or in the showroom that the customers can carry the goods purchased from it in their own carry bags or they are allowed to bring their own carry bags inside the showroom. The OP by printing its logo on carry bags and charging the customers for such carry bags, on purchase of articles from its showroom has indulged into unfair trade practices. Prayer has been made for allowing the complaint. 

4.                Complainant has tendered her affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed her evidence. 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.  

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

6.                 Complainant has argued that she purchased some clothes from the OP. OP charged an additional amount of Rs.5/- for a paper carry bag for carrying the articles purchased from it and she paid a total amount of Rs.903/- (Rs.898/- +Rs.5/-). 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.5/- 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 bag 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.5/- 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 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 the Westside Pvt. Ltd. Co. and Zudio Pvt. Ltd. are owned by TATA Group of Companies. Matter pertaining to Westside Pvt. Ltd. Co. 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 dispose of and the order of the State Commission 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 merit. 

7.                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. Vide Annexure OP-2, the OP informed all the customers either to bring a bag or buy a paper bag and the price of the different sizes of the carry bags had been mentioned on it. The OP has charged the same price of the carry bag i.e. Rs.5/- as mentioned on the Annexure OP-2. Realizing the price of the goods by the OP, it cannot be said to be either deficient in providing services or its indulgence into unfair trade practice.

8.                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 :03.02.2020

 

 

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

       Member                                        Member                            President