Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/353

Harshit Sachar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

complaint in person

08 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:353 dated 15.12.2020.                                                         Date of decision: 08.11.2021. 

 

Sh. Harshit Sachar, aged about 21 years son of Sh. Anil Sachar, Resident of House No.214-215, G-Block, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Reliance Retail Limited, S.C.F. 12, 13, 14, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana-141013 through its M.D/Director.
2. Reliance Retail Limited, 3^rd Floor, Court House, Lok Manya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Tolao, Mumbai-MH400002 through its Director.                                                                                                   …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,      2019.

 

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Complaint against OP1 dismissed as                                                            withdrawn.

For OP2                         :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Maggi Masala Noodles and 3.25 Kg sugar from OP1 vide bill No.204 dated 22.12.2019. When the complainant checked the bill, he found that OPs had charged a sum of Rs.6/- for the carry bag in which the goods were delivered to him. The charging of a sum of Rs.6/- not only amounts to deficiency of service, but also unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for indulging in unfair trade practice and another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for having caused mental pain and agony to the complainant along with Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, OP2 did not appear despite service of notice and was proceeded against exparte. However, complaint against OP1 was dismissed as withdrawn.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA with documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have gone through the record and have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant.

5.                The evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebutted on the file as the OP2 has not chosen to contest the case and he did not appear despite service and was proceeded exparte. From the bill Ex. C2, it is evident that the OPs charged Rs.6/- towards the cost of the bag. The complainant has placed on record the photocopy Ex. C1 of the carry bag on which the name and logo of the OPs is printed.  The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.275 of 2020 reported in 2020 in SSC (NCDRC) 495 titled as  Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar has held that the consumer has a right to know before he exercises his choice to patronize a particular retail outlet, and before he makes his selection of goods for purchase, that additional cost will be charged for carry bags and also the right to know the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. It has further been held that prominent prior notice and information has necessarily to be there to enable the consumer to make his choice of whether or not to patronize the concerned outlet and the consumer is necessarily required to be informed of the additional cost for carry bags and of their salient specifications and price before he makes his selection of goods for purchase. It has been further held that it cannot be that a notice is displayed at the payment counter or that the consumer is informed at the time of making payment that additional cost will be charged for carry bags. Such notice or information at the time of making the payment not only causes embarrassment and harassment to the consumer and burdens him with additional cost, but also affects his unfettered right to make an informed choice of patronizing a particular outlet at the initial stage itself. It has further been held that arbitrarily and highhandedly deviating from its past practice, deviating from the normal, not giving adequate prominent prior notice or information to the consumer before he makes his choice of patronizing the retail outlet and before he makes his selection for purchase, imposing additional cost of carry bags at the time of making payment, after the selection has been made, forcing carry bags without disclosing their salient specifications at price as fixed by the OP company putting the consumer to embarrassment and harassment, burdening the consumer with additional cost, in such way and manner, is decidedly unfair and deceptive. 

6.                In the light of the law laid down in the cited case, it is abundantly clear that the consumer cannot be taken by surprise that he would be charged additional cost of the carry bag at the billing counter. In the instant case also, the complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs.6/- towards the costs of the bag after he had collected the goods for purchase, which could not be otherwise carried without a carry bag. It was not brought to the notice of the complainant by way of a prominent notice at the entrance or elsewhere in the store that he would have to pay the additional cost of the carry bag. Therefore, this amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

7.                Secondly, it is evident from Ex. C1 that the bag carried a logo and the name of the OP company, which proves that the OPs are selling the bags having their company logo and name and by doing this, they are using the consumers as tool of their advertisement, which also amounts to unfair trade practice.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OP2 shall pay back the amount of Rs.6/- to the complainant along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of actual payment. OP2 shall further pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only)  as composite cost to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.11.2021.

Gobind Ram.