DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 102 of 2021.

 

1. Sri Goutam Das,

S/O. Sri Nimai Das,

Of Ward No.32, Bidyasagar Road,

Jogendranagar, P.O.-Collegetilla,

P.S.-East Agartala, Pin-799004,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala….......................................................................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. Store Manager,

Pantaloons, Aditya Birala Fashion,

And Retail Limited, M. L. Plaza,

Mantri Bari Road, Agartala,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.-West Tripura …............................................................................ Opposite Party.

 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Smt. Piyali Chakraborty,

  Smt. Monalisha Pal,

  Advocates. 

 

For the O.P.  : Sri Karnajit De,

  Advocate. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  29/08/2022.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Goutam Das, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  complaining against the O.P. for deficiency of service. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased on 15/09/2021 some wearing apparel from “Pantaloons” Shopping mall, M.L. Plaza, Agartala. But at the entrance gate does not allow the Complainant to enter with carry bags within their premises. Thereafter he went to the bill counter for payment of the goods, the staff of the bill counter took carry bag from their own for the purpose of packing of those purchased articles without asking him in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state,so that its physical possession could be handed over to him. But surprisingly the staff of the cash counter told him to pay extra Rs.7/- for carry bag. Thereafter, he made contact with the Store Manager of the mall but from where also he did not get any proper response of extra charge for carry bag and he also enquired on what basis they charged for Rs.7/- for low quality carry bag and also asked them to provide him any circular regarding that issue but they did not pay any attention of his queries. He again went to the bill counter for rectification of bill and requested the staff of the cash counter to remove the extra charge of carry bag but surprisingly the staff of the cash counter loudly told him in front of the other customers of the mall that rectification of bill is not possible. As a result he had to suffer mental pressure, agony and faced harassment infront of the other customers which was unbearable to him. Hence, there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of O.P. namely “Pantaloons”, Shopping mall, M.L. Plaza, Agartala.

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the conduct of the O.P.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming Rs.1,10,000/-(Rs.60,000/- + Rs.34,000/- + Rs.16,000/-)  as deficiency of service and as compensation for causing harassment, negligence and  mental agony  from the O.P.  

Hence this case. 

2. On the other hand O.P. contested the case by filling written statement.  

         In the written statement the O.P. submitted para-wise reply to the complaint in seriatim. Mostly, O.P. denied and disputed the averments made in the complaint.           

        In the written statement it is also stated that none of the customers are forced to buy any carry bag. It is a routine procedure to restrict every kind of bag outside the mall for various security measures and there is no compulsion upon customers regarding purchase of carry bag. The purchase of carry bag is an option given to the customer and customers reserve their sole discretion to exercise the same. As a responsible business entity, the Company has made sincere efforts to reduce the use of carry bag since the same is detrimental to the environment. In case the customer wants to purchase the carry bag, the price of the same lis first informed to the customer and only after his/her acceptance to buy the same, the same is billed to the customer. The charge of carry bags is therefore to be borne by the customers who are willing to purchase the same and the said legal transaction can not be termed as unfair trade practice under section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is submitted that complaint is not maintainable in its present form and nature.   

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Both parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence but Complainant failed to adduce any evidence by way of affidavit.  

         Rather, O.P. submitted their examination-in-chief on affidavit of one witness namely Sri Tarak Das, S/O. Sri Nitai Das, working as Assistant Manager – Operations, Pantaloons Store, M.L. Plaza, Agartala 

    Since, Complainant was absent on the date of filing of evidence it was decided to deliver the judgment on merit.         

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the pleadings of both parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the following points are to be determined:

    (i). Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant?

    (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?           

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

Both issues are taken up together for the convenience.

          We have gone through the complaint as well as written statement and also evidence adduced on behalf of the O.P. 

            The crux of the allegation is that Complainant was compelled to make payment of Rs.7/- extra for a carry bag for which Complainant sought for compensation. Burden lies upon the Complainant to prove that he was compelled by the O.P. to purchase a carry bag. Though, Complainant was given opportunity to submit his evidence on affidavit but he failed. 

        On the other hand one Sri Tarak Das submitted examination-in-chief on affidavit on behalf of the O.P. and denied the factum of compelling. It is stated that the billing executive of the Company while billing the goods always politely asks the customers as  to whether they want to purchase carry bag or not. It is only when a customer gives his consent to purchase a carry bag, such item is billed to the customer.

       It is found from the unexhibiting cash memo the customer's name is Sri U. Das and here the name of the Complainant is Sri Goutam Das. The invoice also does not support the allegation of the Complainant.  

6.    In the result, we hold that Complainant has failed to prove his complaint. Accordingly, complaint is dismissed.    

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost. 

 

        Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.