Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1084/2019

Sushma Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Miniso - Opp.Party(s)

Vanita Jain

03 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1084/2019
Date of Institution	:	26/11/2019
Date of Decision	:	03/08/2021

 

 

Sushma Devi d/o Sh. Rajender Singh r/o H.No.10, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Manager, Miniso, 178-178A, Lower Ground Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Ellante Mall, Chandigarh 160002.
2. The Authorised Representative, M/s Miniso Life Style Private Limited, Office at Unit No.912, 9^th Floor, Well-Done Tech Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurugram, Haryana-122082.

… Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vanita Jain, Counsel for complainant
	:	Ms. Priya Singhi, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The allegations in brief are, complainant visited the premises of OP-1 and purchased multifunctional cosmetic and jewellery box costing ₹290/-.  The cashier of the OP vide bill (Annexure C-1) handed over the jewellery box alongwith paper carry bag costing ₹10/-. The paper bag bore the name of store ‘Miniso Japan’. The complainant did not intend to purchase the said carry bag and she was forced to do so. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.9.2019 demanding the OPs to settle the claim, but, vide reply dated 28.9.2019 same was denied by the OPs. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and contended that the complainant herself approached the OPs for the purpose of shopping and at the time of billing she was asked if she wanted carry bag/paper shopping bag, charges of ₹10/- would be added.  Maintained customers cannot claim carry bag as complimentary gift and there is no obligation to purchase the carry bags from the OPs. Denied the complainant was ever pressurized to purchase the carry bag.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
5.     The factum of providing paper carry bag under the heading “MINISO Paper Shopping Bag L” to the complainant, on payment of additional price, is proved from the invoice dated 6.9.2019 (Annexure C-1). As per the complainant, it was the duty of the OPs to provide free paper bag to the customers, but, she was forced to pay for the same. Needless to mention here that the complainant did not intend to purchase the same.
6.     On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is customers cannot claim carry bag as complimentary gift; there is no obligation to purchase carry bags from the OPs and further that the complainant was never pressurized to purchase the carry bag.
7.     No doubt, OPs argued that the complainant was never pressurized to purchase the carry bag, but, at any rate, we are of the view that charges of such things (carry bags) cannot be separately foisted upon the consumers and it would amount to overcharging. In this manner, definitely and surely, the complainant and other gullible consumers like her have certainly been taken for a ride by the OPs. The OP must have several stores across the country and in the above manner, made a lot of money. Thus, the act of OPs by forcing the gullible consumers like the complainant to pay additionally for the carry bags amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.
8.     The sequence of the events of the present case, clearly establishes high handedness of the OPs of which the complainant became a victim and bore the brunt. As a result, the complainant was left with no alternative, except to knock the doors of this Commission, which further aggravated her pain and harassment.
9.     In identical set of circumstances, it has been held by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller.  Here our view is bolstered from the judgment dated 18.05.2020 of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in F.A. No.238/2019–Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar, wherein it was decided as under:-

“It may be stated here that, once we have already held that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller, as such, the contention raised does not merit acceptance. Ever otherwise, as per the contention raised by Counsel for the appellant, on the one hand, purchase of carry bags is made optional & voluntary but at the same time, the consumer/customer is not allowed to enter the shop with their own carry bags containing some goods purchased from other shop premises. We cannot expect that for every single item/article intended to be purchased by a customer, he/she needs to carry separate carry bags. For e.g. if a customer wants to purchase, say about 15 in number, daily-use goods/articles like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad, soap, toothpaste, shaving cream, pen, pencil etc., from different shops, we cannot expect him/her to take 15 carry bags from home, for the same. Thus, by not allowing the customers to carry their own carry bags by the appellant in its premises, there was no option left with them to buy the carry bags alongwith the goods purchased, to carry the same from the shop-premises. We are shocked to note the kind of services provided by these big Malls/Showrooms. One cannot be expected to take the goods like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., purchased, in hands. By not allowing the customers to bring in the shop premises, their own carry bags, and thrusting its own carry bags against consideration, the appellant is deficient in providing service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. No case is made out to reverse the findings of the respective District Forum in each appeal.”

The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

10.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed, and the same is partly allowed. The OPs are directed:-

(i) To refund to the Complainant the amount of ₹10/- wrongly charged for the paper carry bag;

(ii) To pay ₹1,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to her.

(iii) To pay ₹500/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

11.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above. 
12.     Before parting, it is important to note here that despite numerous orders, OPs and such like service providers have not stopped the practice of charging for the carry bag from the customers. Therefore, keeping in view the above, we further direct the OPs to forthwith stop their unfair trade practice of charging for the paper carry bag and in future provide the same free of cost to all customers who purchase articles from them.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	sd/-	sd/-
03/08/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member