Haryana

Karnal

CC/212/2019

Rajesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Diary Research Institute (NDRI) - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Sharma

21 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 212 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.22.04.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 21.01.2020

 

Rajesh Sharma wife of Shri K.R. Sharma resident of 2248 Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

National Diary Research Institute, (NDRI) Karnal through its Director.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Rajesh Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Devender Sharma Advocate for opposite party.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                     

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that National Diary Research Institute (NDRI) is a famous institute known for its researches all over the world. Having a great reputation for its milk products also because of high quality hygiene. On 20.04.2019 the complainant went to NDRI and purchased milk pouches and ice cream from the sale counter of NDRI situated inside NDRI campus etc. The complainant took 10 milk pouches and 4 ice creams from the sale counter of NDRI, Karnal. The complainant asked for the bill amount. The attendant standing on the counter issued the bill no.0059 dated 20.04.2019 and further asked to pay Rs.335/-. The complainant asked why he has been charged Rs.15/- extra. Because the cost of 10 milk pouches @ 20 each is Rs.200/- plus 4 ice cream @ Rs.30/- each Rs.120/- and total amount Rs.320/-. The sales man explained that GST has been charged and Rs.5/- extra have been charged for carrying bag. The complainant surprised to see that why Rs.5/- have been charged for the carry bag. The complainant enquired and asked the sales man that it is your responsibility to supply carry bag when the complainant has purchased milk product from your sale counter otherwise without bag it is not possible for customer to carry these pouches and other goods. The sales man was adamant and said that they have been charging for carry bag since long and it is not that they have charged only from you. It is not possible for the complainant to carry the purchased items in hand and to make the payment of Rs.5/- for Carry Bag. Because of all this the complainant became mentally upset and it is further mentioned that thousands of person visit the counter daily and they are charging for carry bag unnecessarily. NDRI is selling its milk products of crores of rupees every year on its counter and lacs of carry bags are consumed every year. Thus NDRI is accumulating huge money by selling only carry bags to its own customers. The complainant though was not having any intention of purchasing the carry bags but was forced to purchase the carry bag. The carry bag was printed and was carrying its name of the Institute on the carry bag thus endorsing the name, which is not justified. It is the moral as well as social duty of such a big institution to take care of all these things and supply the carry bag free of costs so that people may not throw the empty plastic pouches in the road and thus can help in preserving healthy environment. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and field written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant took 10 milk pouch and 4 ice cream from the sale counter of the NDRI Karnal. The complainant asked for the bill amount and the attendant attending on the counter issued the bill no.0059 dated 20.04.2019 to the complainant. It is wrong to say that the counter incharge asked the complainant to pay Rs.335/-. The total cost of the products purchased by the complainant was Rs.325/- as mentioned in the bill, but at the time of calculation of the total amount, it was wrongly written by the counter incharge as Rs.335/- on the bill instead of Rs.325/-. It is further pleaded that the counter incharge charged Rs.325/- from the complainant which was the actual price of the products purchased by the complainant. It is wrong to say that the complainant asked why he has been charged Rs.15/- extra because the cost of 10 milk pouches @ 20/- each is Rs.200/-+4 ice cream at the rate of Rs.30/- each is Rs.120/- and total comes to Rs.320/-.  It is admitted fact that GST has been charged on the product and Rs.5/- has been charged for carry bag. It is further pleaded that it is not the responsibility of the OP to provide the carry bag to the customers. It is pleaded that carry bag is to be provided to the customers only on their demand. It depends upon the wish and desire of the customers, whether they want to purchase carry bag from the sale counter or not. It is further pleaded that the OP is selling the carry bag since long time. Initially the cost of the carry bag was fixed Rs.8/- by the office of the OP, vide office order dated 12.07.2001, thereafter, the same was fixed for Rs.5/- vide nothing 03.06.2009. The cost of the carry bag is approximately Rs.5/- and the OP is selling the same at the rate of 5/- per carry bag on the basis of no profit no loss. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 04.10.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Rohtash Meena Senior Technician Ex.OPW1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on 07.01.2020.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             Admittedly, on 20.04.2019, the complainant had purchased 10 milk pouches and four ice cream from the sale counter of the NDRI Karnal and in this regard OP issued bill Ex.C1. As per the allegations of the complainant, the OP had charged Rs.5/- for carry bag which is not permissible. The complainant placed on record carry bag Ex.C2. The complainant paid for refund of carry bag and also prayed for imposed penalty upon the OP only Rs.1/- and prayed for depositing Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of District Legal Aid.

7.             On the other hand, the version of the OP is that OP has charged Rs.5/- for carry bag and it is not the responsibility of the OP to provide the carry bag to the customer free of cost and the carry bag is to be provided to the customers only on their demand. It is further submitted that the counter incharge did not provide/sale the carry bag to the customer forcibly. The OP is a government institution and not a private one. They have purchased carry bags vide purchase order Ex.OP5 to the tune of Rs.1,21,100/- and it is not possible that the said carry bags is to be provided to the customer free of cost. The OP has not charged excess amount from the customers. Moreover, carry bag contains MRP as Rs.5/- and same has been charged from the complainant. In the said carry bag the word “In the service of nation” has been mentioned and nothing has been advertized with regard to their products on the said carry bag.

8.             The OP has charged Rs.5/- as price of the carry bag which is mentioned on the same as MRP. Nothing excess was charged by the OP. The OP is a Government Institution and cannot be charged excess amount as per the norms of the NDRI. If the same does not mention any MRP then the position may be different but in the aforesaid bag there is specifically mentioned the rate of the carry bag as well as on the bill Ex.OP5, it is very well cleared that OP has purchased the carry bags by paying heavy cost and the same has been paid by the government to the agency from where the said carry bags were purchased and in case OP provides the carry bags free of cost, it would put extra burden upon the OP. Hence, it is not possible for them to give carry bags to the customers free of costs. It is clear from the bill as well as from MRP of the carry bag that only MRP has been charged and no excess amount was charged by the OP. It is also admitted case that the carry bag is to be provided by the OP only on the demand of the customers not forcibly.

9.             It is out of place to mention here that generally the security guards who are deployed in the private Malls like Big Bazar, Mega Marts etc. does not allow the customers to enter with the empty carry bags and in that circumstances, they have to purchase carry bags inside the Malls but in the present case the OP is a Government Institution and it is not the case of the complainant that he was not allowed by the employee/security guards of the OP alongwith the empty carry bags and also it is  not the case of the complainant that the carry bags were purchased by him, under compelling circumstances. Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

10.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we found no force in the complaint of the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:21.01.2020                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                           Member