Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 182
Instituted on : 31.03.2023
Decided on : 31.01.2024
Sandeep aged 28 years s/o sh. Randhir Singh r/o H.No.771/12, Salara MohallaRohtak Haryana 124001
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Bata India Limited, Ground Floor, R-245, Model town, Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Manoj Barak, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party exparte.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that on 21.03.2023 he had purchased some footwear and respondent has charged Rs.605/-. Complainant asked the counter staff to provide a “carry bag” for carrying the footwear purchased by him but counter staff abruptly refused to provide a carry bag by saying that the same is against their policy to provide carry bag free of cost and they have already added the carry bag worth Rs.6/- in the bill. Complainant had no intention to purchase the carry bag and it was the duty of respondent to provide the carry bag but he had no option except to pay Rs.6/- forcibly for the alleged carry bag.. The opposite party has illegally charged Rs.6/- from the complainant as cost of carry bag whereas he never demanded any carry bag from the opposite party. As such, there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to compensate the complainant with Rs.50000/- as harassment and Rs.21000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite party which was served through Process Server of this Commission but none appeared on behalf of opposite party and as such opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.05.2023 of this Commission.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.CW2 to Ex.CW3 and closed his evidence on dated 19.01.2024.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, it is not disputed that as per bill Ex.CW2, complainant had purchased the footwear from the opposite party and the opposite party had charged Rs.6/- on account of carry bag. The contention of the complainant is that there was no intention of complainant to purchase the carry bag but the opposite party illegally added the value of carry bag in the bill whereas the same should have been provided to the complainant free of cost. On the other hand, opposite party did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.05.2023 of this Commission which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations levelled by the complainant against the opposite party stands proved. As such there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund Rs.6/-(Rupees six only), to pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.1006/- from the date of order till its realization to the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
31.01.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
TriptiPannu, Member.
…………………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
