Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/312

Sarthak Kpoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shopers Stop Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Kapoor Adv.

16 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 312 dated 24.11.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 16.08.2022.

Sarthak Kapoor son of Sh. Sunil Kapoor son of Sh. Ram Nath Kapoor son of Sh. Gurmukh Dass son of Sh. Saudagar Mal son of Sh. Larrdikka Mal son of Sh. Sauhneiyya Mal, resident of (UID # B001 02678) Block-1, House No.631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001.                                                                                                                ..…Complainant 

1. M/s. Shoppers Stop Ltd., Pavilion Mall, Old Sessions Court Road, Near Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana, Punjb-141001 Tel. No.0161-4244000 (
2. M/s. Shoppers Stop Ltd., Mind Space, Umang Towers 5^th, Off Link Road, Malad West, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400064 (

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. Sunil Kapoor, authorized signatory of the                                             complainant.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Sumeet Bajaj`, Advocate.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 14.05.2019, he purchased clothing items from the OPs vide cash memo No.3249 for a sum of Rs.3296/-. Since the clothing items were heavy, the complainant requested for a carry bag. However, the OPs charged Rs.7/- for the carry bag though they were under an obligation to provide the carry bag free of costs to its customers. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.7/- charged on account of price of the carry bag with interest @2% and further the OPs be made to pay compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- and penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the OPs, the purchase of a carry bag was optional and the complainant was not compelled to purchase the same. However, there is no rule of law currently in force which might place an obligation on the OPs to supply carry bags free of costs to the customers. Moreover, all the environment friendly citizens carry their own shopping bag preferably made of cloth while going out for shopping. Beside, the carry bag was provided to the complainant on his own request and he voluntarily paid the cost of Rs.7/- as price of the bag. Thus, the present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the authorized representative of the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1, Ex. C2, Ex. C3A and Ex. C3B and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, OPs did not produce any evidence formally. However, affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sukhchain Singh, authorized representative of the OPs along with document OP/A is on the record.    

5.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the authorized representative of the complainant as well as by the counsel for the OPs and have gone through the record. 

6.                During the course of arguments, Sh. Sunil Kapoor, authorized representative of the complainant argued that the OPs have wrongly charged a sum of Rs.7/- for the carry bag which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the complainant has relied upon a judgment dated 25.04.2022 titled as Smt. Reema Jeetsingh Chawla Vs The Manager Esbeda Showroom passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Additional Mumbai Suburbs, whereby it has been held that when the consumer comes to the shopping a bag should be provided free of costs and for charging extra for bag amounts to unfair trade practice.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has argued that the OPs never forced the complainant to buy the carry bag from the complainant. Rather the complainant purchased the carry bag voluntarily. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

8.                We have weighed the contentions raised by the authorized representative of the complainant as well as counsel for the OPs and gone through the record.

9.                In the judgment passed by 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, it has been held that a 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 the consumer has 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 consumer to make his choice of whether or not to patronize the concerned outlet. It was also held that a notice displayed on the payment counter is not sufficient. Similarly, in Bata India Limited Vs Dinesh Prashad Raturi in Appeal No.98 of 2019 decided by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh on 17.05.2019 it was held that if on the carry bag, the advertisement of the company was published, it meant that the company had used the consumer as if he was an advertisement agent of the opposite party. In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid case, it has to be held that the OPs were required to prominently and adequately display a notice at some conspicuous part of the outlet that in the event of making any purchase, the customer would be required to pay the cost of the carry bag. In the instant case, it is not the case of the OPs that any such notice or placard was displayed at the entrance or some conspicuous part of the retail outlet. Therefore, the OPs were not entitled to charge Rs.7/- from the complainant as price of the carry bag.  

10.              Secondly, it is evident from Ex. C3/A that the carry bag bears logo of the OP outlet which means that the bag was being used for advertisement purposes. As held in Bata India Limited Vs Dinesh Prashad Raturi (Supra), the OPs could not sell the carry bag carrying its advertisement. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the OPs could not have charged the cost of the bag from the OPs and it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OPs shall refund the amount of Rs.7/- to the complainant. The OPs shall further pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant. The compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              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:16.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Sarthak Kapoor Vs Shoppers Stop Ltd.                           CC/20/312 

Present:       Sh. Sunil Kapoor, authorized representative of the complainant in               person.

                   Sh. Sumeet Bajaj, Advocate for the OPs.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OPs shall refund the amount of Rs.7/- to the complainant. The OPs shall further pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant. The compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.