Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/433/2020

Paras Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Domino's Pizza - Opp.Party(s)

Virat Rana

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/433/2020
Date of Institution	:	08/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	01/02/2023

 

Paras Sharma son of Sh. Ashwani Kumar resident of House No.3249, Second Floor, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Domino’s Pizza, SCO-29, Ground and First Floor, Sector 15, Chandigarh (through its Proprietor).
2. Jubilant Foodworks Limited, Plot No.1-A, Sector 16A, Noida-201305, Uttar Pradesh, India (Registered office)
3. Domino’s Pizza India Limited, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.

… Opposite Parties

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

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Saurabh Gulia, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh. Paras Sharma, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 29.5.2019, complainant visited the OP-1 restaurant and placed order for 1 Reg. HT PM Gold Corn Pizza alongwith 1 sachet and received bill worth ₹79.75 (Annexure C-1).  However, later on complainant came to know that OP had charged ₹12/- extra from him for carry bag vide separate invoice (Annexure C-1).  Upon this, the complainant asked the attendant of the OPs to return the money for said carry bag, but, he flatly refused.  Left with no option, complainant had to buy the carry bag during his take-away order which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objections that complaint is false and vexatious and based on misrepresentations. It is alleged that paper bags were purchased by the OPs and the OPs charged for the same. It is further alleged that the complainant was asked prior to giving him delivery regarding purchase of paper bag and when he confirmed, the same was billed alongwith other items purchased.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of OPs.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had placed order for 1 Reg. HT PM Gold Corn pizza alongwith 1 sachet with the OPs on 29.5.2019 and when he went to the billing counter of the OPs, he was forced to pay ₹12/- as cost of the carry bag, which was charged by the OPs despite of repeated requests of the complainant not to charge the same, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the said act of OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the consumer complaint or if the consumer complaint, being false and frivolous, deserves to be dismissed.
   2. Copies of the two invoices dated 29.5.2019 (Annexure C-1) clearly indicate that the OPs vide order : 268 charged an amount of ₹79.75 from the complainant for 1 Reg. HT PM Gold Corn Pizza alongwith 1 sachet and vide order No.275 another amount of ₹12/- was charged by the OPs from the complainant towards “1.33 cm x 30.5” cm towards cost of the carry bag. 
   3. Learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that prior to billing complainant was informed about the charges of the carry bag and it was only after receiving his affirmation, the invoice levying ₹12/- for the same was issued and the same does not amount to unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the consumer complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs. However, we do not find any force in the same as the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar, Revision Petition No.975 of 2020 decided on 22.12.2020, has held as under :-

“The consumer has the right to know, before he exercises his choice to patronize a particular retail outlet, and before he makes his selection of goods for purchase, that additional cost will be charged for carry bags, and also the right to know the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. Prominent prior notice and information has necessarily to be there (inter alia at the entrance to the retail outlet also), to enable the consumer to make his choice of whether or not to patronize the concerned outlet, and the consumer has necessarily to be informed of the additional cost for carry bags and of their salient specifications and price before he makes his selection of the goods for purchase.

It cannot be that a notice is displayed at the payment counter or that the consumer is informed at the time of making payment that additional cost will be charged for carry bags, after the consumer has already made his selection for purchase and has already made payment or is in the process of making payment for the selected goods. It also cannot be that carry bags of (undisclosed) specifications and of price as fixed by the Opposite Party Co. are so forced on the consumer. Such notice or information at the time of making payment not only causes embarrassment and harassment to the consumer and burdens him with additional cost but also affects his unfettered right to make an informed choice of patronizing or not patronizing a particular outlet at the initial stage itself and before making his selection of goods for purchase.

It may be noted that carry bags, sold at a particular price to the consumer, are in themselves 'goods', and, as such, are themselves, too, within the ambit of the statute for "better protection of the interests of consumers". It cannot be that the said goods (i.e. the carry bags) are imposed on the consumer, without disclosing their salient specifications, at the price fixed by the Opposite Party Co., without prior notice or information that (additional) cost will be charged for them.

The aberrations, in such facts and manner, arbitrarily and highhandedly, are unquestionably 'unfair trade practice' under Section 2(1)(r) of the Act 1986 [corresponding Section 2(47) of the Act 2019].

Section 2(1)(r) of the Act says of "a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:-".

The list provided in Section 2(1)(r) is illustrative and not comprehensive.

That is to say, an unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, as is judiciously determined, on facts and reasons, on fair and objective appraisal of the evidence and material on record, would qualify as 'unfair trade practice' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(r).

4. As such seller is obliged to deliver the goods in complete state of delivery and the delivery of goods means physically handing over the goods from the seller to the buyer in a complete deliverable state and also that the packing of goods is also a state in putting the goods in deliverable state and the expenses incurred in order to putting the goods into deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller.
5. As it stands proved on record that the OPs had charged an amount of ₹12/- from the complainant for the carry bag, the said act of the OPs clearly amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of ₹12/- to the complainant wrongly charged for the carry bag.
2. to pay an amount of ₹1,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹500/-  to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs 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.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/02/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member