Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/776/2019

Ashima Dutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

MINISO - Opp.Party(s)

Shiti Jain Dutt Adv.

07 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	776/2019
Date of Institution	:	20.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	07.12.2020

 

                                       

                                               

Ashima Dutt w/o Sh.Arvind Dutt r/o H.No.2163, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh-160022.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

Miniso, Unit No.11, Lower Ground Floor, Elante Mall, Plot No.178 & 178-A, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh -160002 through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorized Signatory.  

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:

SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-

Ms.Shiti Jain Dutt, 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 she did shopping worth Rs.670/- vide Invoice (Annexure C-1). It has further been averred that when she was handed over the invoice, it came to her notice that she was charged Rs.10/- in addition to Rs.670/- for the carry bag to carry away the items purchased by her. She objected to charging of the carry bag as it should be provided free of cost because when a person purchases so many things from a shop then she is not expected to carry the items in hand as such the shop must provide a carry bag. It has further been averred that she objected to the above after seeing the bill and asked the OP to refund the amount of the paper 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.670/- on 17.07.2019 from their store. It has further been pleaded that the complainant had bought the carry bag on her own wish and she had not raised any objection at the time of billing and she 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 as well as the written arguments of OP.
4.         The complainant has placed on record the original Invoice as Annexure C-1 vide which she purchased the goods worth Rs.670/- 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 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 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.        Since the complaint has been allowed and as such the application filed by the OP for dismissal become infractuous and the same stands dismissed accordingly     
10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 07.12.2020	Sd/-
	(RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER