Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/27/2020

Ishaan Dogra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Miniso - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	27/2020
Date of Institution	:	14.01.2020
Date of Decision	:	02.05.2022

 

                     

                         

Ishaan Dogra aged 29 years s/o Sh.Govind Dogra r/o Flat No.1102, Block 1, The Eminence, Near Singhpura Gate, Zirakpur, District Mohali-140603.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1. M/s Miniso, Unit No.11, Lower Ground Floor, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh 160002.
2. M/s Miniso Life Style Pvt. Ltd., 9^th Floor, Well Done Tech Park, Sohna Road, Sector 48, Gurugram, Haryana 122018.
3. M/s Ckaari Packaging Pvt. Ltd., B 70/17, DSIDC Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110035.

... Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER 

 

Argued by:-

 

Sh.Ajay Sharma, Adv. for the complainant

Sh.Nitish Singhi, Adv. for the OP.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.       The facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant, are that on 20.10.2019,  he had purchased certain items worth Rs.620/- inclusive of GST and was surprised to see the bill that the OPs charged Rs.10/- for the paper carry bag.  It has further been averred that the OP fleeced the complainant by charging Rs.10/- for the carry bag against the orders passed by this Commission.   It has further been averred that the carry bag provided by the OP bears the logo and is stylish in nature and used the consumer as an advertisement agent. 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 their written statement, OPs No.1 and 2  have pleaded that before preparing the invoice, the complainant was asked by the cashier whether if he wished to get a paper carry bag which was to be charged at Rs.10/- and only after consent of the complainant, the cashier had charged the price of the carry bag.   It has further been pleaded that there is no rule as such obligates the retailers to provide carry bags for free. Since the use of plastic bags are banned/restricted for the environment safety, so it is the duty of the customers as well to carry its own carry bag when going for shopping in the larger interest of the environment. 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.     The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OPs No.1 and 2 controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.     OP No.3 did not appear despite so many opportunities and, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vie order dated 11.10.2021.
5.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the documents on record.
6.     The complainant has placed on record the photocopy of the Invoice as Annexure C-1 vide which he purchased the goods worth Rs.620/- from OPs No.1 and 2. 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.
7.     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 OPs No.1 and 2 because OPs No.1 and 2 have 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 OPs No.1 and 2. 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 OPs No.1 and 2. By employing unfair trade practice, OPs No.1 and 2 are minting lot of money from the gullible customers from all their stores situated across the country.
8.     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 OPs No.1 and 2  is proved.

9.       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against OPs No.1 and 2, and the same is accordingly allowed qua it. OPs No.1 and 2 are 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.      
10.     This order shall be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2 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.
11.     The complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed as the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on its part.
12.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 02.05.2022
	Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER