BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

      Complaint No.346 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 08.10.2020

      Date of Decision:04.12.2024

Rajiv Nanda aged 71 years son of K. K. Nanda, resident of House No.143-R, Model Town, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Lovely Wannabuy (A unit of Lovely Bake Studio) Opposite Lal Rattan Cinema, Nakoder Road, Jalandhar.        Through its Authorized Representative.

2.       Manager, Lovely Wannabuy (A unit of Lovely Bake Studio)    Opposite Lal Rattan Cinema, Nakoder Road, Jalandhar

3.       M/s Lovely Bake Studio, Nakoder Road, Jalandhar. Through its Authorized Representative.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                    Smt. Jyotsna                                      (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Abhinav Nanda, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. Brijesh Bakshi, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

                   Sh. Arun Gupta, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj(President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that           the complainant purchased goods from the OPs vide Tax Invoice/Memo No.LCJL20CS00011140 dated 20.09.2020 for Rs.893/-, in which Rs.8/- per bag was charged in the bill i.e. Rs.8/- for 1 bags were charged in the bill. The complainant stated to the person sitting on the cash counter that he cannot charge the amount for carry bag as the same is unfair trade practice, but the person sitting on the cash counter misbehaved with the complainant and openly told him that if he dare to take any action he would face the dire consequences. The name of carry bags has been mentioned as Non Woven Carry Bag and has been charged Rs.08/- per carry bag for the same and when it was objected by the complainant then the officials of OPs No.1 and 2 openly told that this is system generated name of the carry bags. There is great deficiency and negligence in services on the part of the OP and due to that the complainant has suffered a great mental tension, agony and harassment apart from humiliation and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the alleged amount of Rs.8/- charged as carry bag with interest. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 and 2 filed its joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the captioned complaint is not maintainable under the law against the OPs. It is further averred that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file and pursue the present case against the answering Respondent. It is further averred that the complainant is barred by his own act, conduct, laches and negligence from filing the present complaint and claiming the relief as prayed by him in the present complaint. It is further averred that the answering respondent is a renowned name in Jalandhar and deals in the supply of groceries and items of daily needs etc. The respondent no.1 got registered in 2014 and in a very short span of time has created a reputation of honest, reliable and efficient service to customers. The respondent no.1 deals in high quality food materials and grocery items and have generated for themselves a loyal likeability among its customers/consumers by giving relentless service and safe and hygienic shopping atmosphere to its customers. It is further averred that the OP has never stopped or barred its customers from bringing their own carry bags and rather has promoted the use of self-carried namely carry bags among its customers especially during the Covid19 Pandemic. The OP is well awake to the sanitary and hygienic conditions and keeps its premises properly sanitized and safe. It can be seen that in the premises after stairs at the entry point itself there is a baggage counter at the entrance where the consumer can deposit their shopping bags and belongings and take shopping trolleys, however, if any customer wants to carry the shopping bag with him, he/ she can bring it in and deposit the same even at the Cash Counter where it is kept by the attendant and this is done so to encourage own shopping bags of customers and at the same time to restrict shop lifting. As after shopping and payment the said deposited carry bag can be used by the customer. It is further averred that      the OP never force upon the consumer or any customer that they shall or must buy the carry bags of the store as the respondents are totally well equipped with other free packing facilities to provide the goods to the consumers in a deliverable state. As such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short score alone. It is further averred that the Complainant is guilty of concealment of material facts and misstatement and has not approached this Forum with clean hands and deserves no relief from this Forum. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the goods, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against the OPs, as such, the present complaint against the OPs is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has suppresses true and material facts from this Commission, as such, the present complaint against the OPs is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the present complaint as it is not a consumer dispute and the same does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, as such, the present complaint against the opposite parties is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complaint does not disclosed any type of unfair/restrictive trade practice against the OPs, as such, the present complaint against the OPs is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint against the OPs, by his own act and conduct, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the goods by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that Rs.8/- was charged for Non-Woven Carry bag from the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

5.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

7.                The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that he has purchased the goods from the OP for Rs.893/- in which Rs.8/- per bag was charged in the bill. He has alleged that as per law, the person sitting on the cash counter cannot charge any amount for carry bag and the same is unfair trade practice as the name of the carry bag has been as ‘Non Woven’ carry bag. He has alleged the deficiency in service and negligence in service by the OPs. He has referred a pronouncement of Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as ‘Bata India Ltd. vs. Dinesh Parshad Raturi’, decided on 22.07.2019. He has further referred a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, titled as ‘Big Bazaar and others Vs. Ashok Kumar and other’, decided on 22.12.2020. He has further referred a pronouncement of Hon’ble State Commission, U. T., Chandigarh, titled as ‘M/s Dominos, Jublilant Foodworks Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Chandgothia’.

8.                On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the OP has denied any deficiency in service or negligence by the OPs. It has been submitted by the OP that the OP has never stopped or barred the customers from bringing their own carry bags rather has promoted the use of self carried homely carry bags among its customers. It has been specifically mentioned and displayed that if the customers wants to carry the shopping bag with him, he/she can bring it and deposit the same even at the cash counter where it is kept by the attendant to encourage own shopping bag by the customers. He has produced on record the photographs of the shopping centre and has specifically pointed out the display note in the showroom to prove that the customers have never been stopped from carrying their carry bags. He has referred the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, case titled as Sukhrit S. Sohal Vs. Brand Factory, Cosmo Plaza Mall, in F. A No.4 of 2020, decided on 12.01.2023.

9.                The complainant has produced on record the bill Ex.C-1 which shows that the amount of Rs.8/- has been charged for non-woven carry bag. The complainant has also produced on record the photo of carry bag showing that the name of the shopping centre has been published on this carry bag. Now the point is as to whether the complainant was forced to take the carry bag as alleged or it was the option of the complainant to take the carry bag. The complainant has referred the judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, titled as ‘Bata India Limited Vs. Dinesh Parshad Raturi’, wherein it has been mentioned that if the specific name has been mentioned on the carry bag, it amounts to deficiency as the companies used the consumer as if he is the advertisement agent of OP. Similarly, it has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission, in a case titled as ‘M/s Dominos, Jubilant Foodworks Vs. Panjak Chandgothia’ that where the carry bags are used for the purpose of their own advertisement as well as to put the things into deliverable stage, then this is deficiency in service. Similarly, it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission, in a case titled as ‘Big Bazaar and Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar and Ors.’  that where the carry bags are used for the purpose of advertisement and additional cost for carry bag is imposed on the customers forcibly, then it is negligence and deficiency in service, but the point to be seen in the present case is as to whether the complainant was forced to take the carry bag. The OP has produced on record the photographs Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP-2/11. Perusal of these photographs shows that the trolleys are there for keeping the grocery goods to be purchased by the customers and card boards are also available for packing the grocery goods and the same has been displayed in Ex.OP-2/1. Ex.OP2/4 to Ex.OP2/10 show that everywhere it has been displayed that the customers are encouraged to bring their carry bags and green environment. It has also been displayed everywhere that card boards are available. It has also been displayed that the persons are available for any help and assistance, if required. The card boards have also been shown to be there to pack the goods. In such circumstances and from the photographs, it is clear that the customers have been made aware of the fact that they are not forced or supposed to purchase the carry bag. The complainant has alleged that he was forced to purchase the carry bag, but he has not led any evidence to prove that he was forced to purchase carry bags. From the photographs, it is proved that it has been displayed everywhere that the customers are encouraged to bring their carry bags. This shows that the customers are being informed that it is not mandatory to purchase the carry bag. In such circumstances, it was the complainant, who, himself opted for the purchase of the carry bag at the price of Rs.8/-. This is not the case that the complainant is an un-educated person and he cannot understand the meaning of the words displayed in the showroom rather it has been mentioned on the board that the persons are available for assistance. In these circumstances, it is proved that the complainant himself has opted to purchase the carry bag and he was not forced to purchase the carry bag. When there is no compulsion or allurement on behalf of the OP as has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, in a case titled as ‘Sukhrit S Sohal Vs. Brand Factory, Cosmo Plaza Mall’ that where the customers are informed everything about the carry bags and even then the customer purchases the carry bag, this shows that he has voluntarily exercised his option to purchase the carry bag.

10.              So, from the overall circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

04.12.2024         Member                          Member              President