DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 159 of 2021.

 

1. Sri Nantu Debnath,

S/O. Late Sachindra Debnath,

R/O. Vivekananda Lane, Near Ambedkar School, Joynagar,

P.O.-Agartala, Pin-799001,

P.S.-West Agartala,

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

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

1. STORE MANAGER,

LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,

MAX RETAIL DIVISION,

  oRIENTAL cHOWMUHANI, 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. 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Mrs. Piyali Chakraorty,

  Advocate. 

 

For the O.P.  : Sri Sampad Choudhury, 

   Advocate. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 07/09/2022.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Nantu Debnath, 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 on 20/11/2021 the Complainant went to MAX RETAIL DIVISION, A unit of LIFE STYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD., Shopping Mall, Orient Chowmuhani, Agartala for purchasing some wearing apparel and while entering inside into the Shopping Mall, the staff of O.P. at the entrance gate does not allow the Complainant to enter within their business premises with carry bags which the Complainant brought with him. 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. Then the Complainant was forced to pay Rs.7/- extra as the carry bag charge. Thereafter, he made contact with the Store Manager of the mall but from there 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 “Life Style International Private Ltd., Max Retail Division” Shopping Mall, Orient Chowmuhani, Agartala,. 

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 is 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 O.P SIDE:-

No evidence adduced by the Complainant side.

      On behalf of the O.P. one witness namely Sri Sayan Bose, S/O. Alok Kumar Bose, working for Store Manager of Max Retail Division, Agartala a Division of Lifestyle International Private Ltd. and he has submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. In this case O.P. has produced 05 documents comprising 40 sheets under a Firisti dated 27/07/2022.     

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the complaint and having regard to the evidence adduced by the O.P., 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?           

   ARGUMENT BY THE O.P. SIDE :- :-

        At the time of argument no step from the side of the Complainant as well as no written argument submitted by the Complainant. 

              On the other hand Learned Counsel of the O.P. submitted a written argument. Learned Counsel of the O.P. stated that customers will have to bring their carry bag for shopping purpose and there is no law shown under which O.P. is required to give a shopping bag free of cost to its customers. Learned Counsel of the O.P. submitted to dismiss the complaint as devoid of merit.                       

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

Both issues are taken up together for the convenience. 

          We have gone through the complaint, written reply and also evidence adduced from the side of the O.P.

           On perusal of the complaint it is found that the crux of the allegation is that Complainant was compelled to purchase carry bag which is illegal. Complainant in support of the complaint adduced one invoice and one carry bag but they are not exhibited. Since the Complainant to prove that he was forced to purchase a carry bag on payment of extra. Complainant failed to exhibit any document and carry bag. Moreover invoice does not show the name of the Complainant as purchaser. 

          In the instant case invoice is the vital document. Since we did not find any name of the purchaser in the invoice, we hold that Complainant is not able to prove that he himself purchased the carry bag from the Shopping Mall of the O.P.   

7. In view of the above discussion we are in the opinion that Complainant has failed to prove his case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.       

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

        Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.