Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 213
Instituted on : 01.05.2019
Decided on : 04.11.2022.
Arun Yadav S/o Satyaveer Singh R/o H.No. 36-R, Model Town, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Managing Director, Vishal Mega Mart, 136/22, D.S.Plaza, Rohtak-Sonepat Road, Vikas Nagar, Rohtak.
- The Manager, Vishal Mega Mart, Air Plaza, Retail Holdings, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 184, Platinum Tower, 5th Floor, Udyog Vihar, Phase-II, Gurugram, Haryana.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Rinku Jangra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Vikram Singh Ohlan, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased many articles from the opposite party No. 1 on dated 15.04.2019 and they charged Rs.14/- for carry bag. It is further submitted that complainant complained about the charges taken by the opposite party no. 1. Then the Operation Head flatly refused to do anything. It is also submitted that it was the store’s duty to provide a free bag to the customer who had purchased their product. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the complainant was made well aware by the employee of the company, who was on duty to use his own carry bag, in case complainant does not wish to purchase the carry bag from the store/outlet of the company. The complainant purchased the bag for Rs.14/- on his own will and desire. The option to use his own carry bag had been given to the complainant before goods were punched in the computer for generating the bill and the consent to the purchase the carry bag has been generated by the complainant prior to the generation of the bill at the concerned store. Complainant never contacted the opposite party or any of their employees and has made allegations against the store without producing any proof. It is submitted that opposite party has displayed at the billing counter and also at various places of its store, that the customers may purchase the carry bags of different variants as per their requirements, which are available at the Store at different prices. It is also submitted that opposite party has also displayed at the entry gate of its store that the customers can bring their own empty carry bags to carry the goods purchased from the store and thereby inviting customers to bring their own empty carry bags inside the store for the goods purchased from the store. The opposite party is not liable to provide free carry bags to all the consumers who purchase the goods from its store. It is denied that complainant asked any employee of the opposite party about charging of carry bag by the opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on dated 17.12.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 14.06.2021.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the bill placed on record as Ex.C2, opposite party had charged Rs.14/- from the complainant on account of shopping bag. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, it is submitted that it is the prime duty of the opposite party to provide carry/shopping bag free of cost to the complainant and other customers. Hence the charging of alleged amount of carry bag from the complainant is illegal.
6. We have gone through the documents placed on record by both the parties and have also placed reliance upon the order dated 22.10.2020 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petitions No.(975 to 988) of 2020 titled as Big Bazaar(Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar etc. whereby Hon’ble National Commission has upheld the order of District Forum as well as State Commission, whereby the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party was determined. The alleged law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also observed that opposite party No.1 has failed to prove its case that the carry bag was separately purchased by the complainant of his own free will. Hence the opposite party has illegally charged Rs.14/- for providing the carry bag from the complainant and there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to refund Rs.14/-(Rupees fourteen only), to pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.1 shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.1014/- from the date of order till its realization to the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.11.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
