Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1137/2019

Arshnoor Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

MINISO - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Manish Sharma, Ravinder Singh & Ajay Sharma

06 May 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	1137/2019
Date of Institution	:	26.11.2019
Date of Decision	:	06.05.2021

 

                                       

                                               

Arshnoor Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh r/o H.No.466, Giani Zail Singh Nagar Ropar, Punjab.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

Miniso, Unit No.11, Lower Ground Floor, Elante Mall, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory/ Representative.

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE:

 

SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER 

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-

Sh.Ajay Sharma, Adv. for the complainant

Sh.Nitish Singhi, Adv. for the OP.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           The facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that on 09.11.2019,  he had purchased certain goods worth Rs.1560/- and was surprised to see the bill that the OP charged Rs.10/- for the carry bag.   It has further been averred that in the entire shop premises, it was nowhere mentioned that the OP would charge for a carry bag also. Having no option, he paid Rs.10/- additionally for the carry bag.  It has further been averred that the OP is advertising the name of its business venture on the carry bag. It has further been averred that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service as also indulged into unfair trade practice by charging for the carry bag. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2.         In its written statement, it has been admitted by the OP that the complainant did shopping for Rs.1560/- on 09.11.2019 from their store. It has further been pleaded that the complainant had bought the carry bag on his own wish and he had not raised any objection at the time of billing and he was never forced/pressurized to buy the same.  It has further been pleaded that there was no obligation of any type to purchase the alleged carry bag/paper shopping bag and the complainant cooked up a false and wrong story just to gain the undue advantage and further to grab the money by adopting wrongful means. The remaining allegations have denied being false.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the documents on record.
4.         The complainant has placed on record the photocopy of the Invoice as Annexure C-1 vide which he purchased the goods worth Rs.1560/- from the OP. It is also evident from the said invoice that the OP had additionally charged a sum of Rs.10/- extra on account of paper carry bag and as such the complainant is a consumer qua the OP as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the objection of the OP, in this regard, is rejected being devoid of any merit.
5.         The factum of charging additional price for providing paper carry bag has not been disputed by the OP.   The argument put forward by the OP is that the carry bags are chargeable at its store and the customers are free to decide to buy the carry bags or not.  However we are not impressed with this argument of the OP because the Opposite Party has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence in the shape of any rules/ instructions authorizing it to levy charge additionally for the carry bag from the gullible Consumers. In this backdrop, charges of such things (carry bags) cannot be separately foisted upon the consumers and the same would amount to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. In our considered view, the price of the carry bag has generally been included by them in the profit margins of the product(s). It was for gain of the OP. By employing unfair trade practice, the OP is minting lot of money from the gullible customers from all their stores situated across the country.
6.         Moreover, it has been held by our Hon’ble State Commission that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller.  Here our view is bolstered from the judgment dated 18.05.2020 of our own Hon’ble State Commission passed in F.A. No.238/2019 –Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar, wherein it was decided as under:-

        “It may be stated here that, once we have already held that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller, as such, the contention raised does not merit acceptance. Ever otherwise, as per the contention raised by Counsel for the appellant, on the one hand, purchase of carry bags is made optional & voluntary but at the same time, the consumer/customer is not allowed to enter the shop with their own carry bags containing some goods purchased from other shop premises. We cannot expect that for every single item/article intended to be purchased by a customer, he/she needs to carry separate carry bags. For e.g. if a customer wants to purchase, say about 15 in number, daily-use goods/articles like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad, soap, toothpaste, shaving cream, pen, pencil etc., from different shops, we cannot expect him/her to take 15 carry bags from home, for the same. Thus, by not allowing the customers to carry their own carry bags by the appellant in its premises, there was no option left with them to buy the carry bags alongwith the goods purchased, to carry the same from the shop-premises. We are shocked to note the kind of services provided by these big Malls/Showrooms. One cannot be expected to take the goods like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., purchased, in hands. By not allowing the customers to bring in the shop premises, their own carry bags, and thrusting its own carry bags against consideration, the appellant is deficient in providing service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. No case is made out to reverse the findings of the respective District Forum in each appeal.”

 

                The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP is proved.

7.       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against the Opposite Party, and the same is accordingly allowed qua it. The Opposite Party is directed as under:-
   1. to refund Rs.10/- i.e. price of the paper carry bag to the complainant.
   2. to pay Rs.500/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.  Compensation imposed on lower side as mental agony of parting with the price of the carry bag could only be caused to this extent.
   3. to pay Rs.1,100/- as litigation expenses.      
8.         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall be liable to pay the amount at Sr.No.(i) and  (ii) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order, till its realization besides litigation expenses.
9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 06.05.2021	Sd/-
	(RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER