Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/712/2019

Rohit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retails Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Yugansh Siwach

28 May 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/712/2019
Date of Institution	:	17/07/2019
Date of Decision	:	28/05/2020

 

Rohit Kumar s/o Surinder Kumar, Kothi No.343, Phase-2, SAS Nagar (Mohali)

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retails Limited (Pantaloons Division), Pantaloons, Elante Mall, Plot No.178 & 78A, Phase – 1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, India, Pin 160002 through its Manager/Proprietor/Director Sh.Ashish Dikshit

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Yugansh Siwach, Counsel for complainant
	:	None for OP

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The long and short of the allegations are on 7.7.2019, complainant visited the shopping complex of the OP and purchased one T-shirt against the price of Rs.299/-. The T-shirt was handed over to the complainant without putting it in a carry bag.  On being asked to hand over the same in a deliverable state, complainant was compelled to pay Rs.5/- towards the purchase of a carry bag. The carry bag was found printed having advertisement of the OP on both sides of the bag.  Complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, the complainant filed the present consumer complaint for directing the OP to pay Rs.5/- wrongly charged for the carry bag alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and claimed while honouring such like order passed in case titled as Pankaj Chandgothia Vs. M/s Life Style International Private Limited, OP has stopped charging for the carry bags. It is further the case, complainant was given option to purchase the carry bag.  Hence denied there was any unfair trade practice on its part. On these lines, cause is sought to be defended.
3.     The complainant did not opt to file rejoinder despite availing opportunity.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, through video conferencing, and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     Per pleadings of the parties, admittedly the complainant had purchased a T-shirt against payment of Rs.299/- and the OP had charged Rs.5/- for the carry bag.  It is so made out per allegations made in the consumer complaint as well as the tax invoice (Annexure C-1) placed on file. 
7.     It is the admitted case of the OP, complainant had visited its shopping complex to purchase a T-shirt and not a carry bag for which he was asked to pay Rs.5/-. Our attention was drawn that vendor to hand over the sold item to the buyer in a deliverable state without the carry bag being provided it was not in a deliverable state which the complainant could have carried.  Section 36(5) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 lays down as under :-

“(5) Unless otherwise agreed, the expenses of and incidental to putting the goods into a deliverable state shall be borne by the seller.”

 

8.     Compelling a buyer to pay for the carry bag appears to be unfair trade practice on the part of the OP because the complainant never intended and visited the shop of the OP for the purchase of a carry bag. Thus, it constitutes unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
9.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of Rs.5/- to the complainant charged towards the sale of the carry bag to the complainant;
2. to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.500/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.  No punitive order is being passed against the OP due to the lock down/curfew for the last more than two months due to which all the business activities in Chandigarh has come to a grinding halt. 
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/05/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President