Back
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Jasbir Singh (Retd.), President, Rajesh K. Arya, Member
WESTSIDE, A UNIT OF TRENT - Appellant
Versus
SAPNA VASUDEV - Respondent
Appeal No. 36 of 2019
Decided On : 08-04-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the practice of charging for paper carry bags can constitute unfair trade practice and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Charging for Paper Carry Bags - Plastic Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011, 2016, 2018 - The court held that the appellant's practice of charging for paper carry bags was against consumerism and amounted to unfair trade practice. The court referred to relevant rules and regulations to support its decision and emphasized that the appellant failed to provide evidence authorizing the levy of additional charges for carry bags. The court also highlighted the appellant's failure to allow customers to bring their own carry bags and concluded that the appellant's actions constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased garments from the appellant's shop and was charged Rs. 10 for a paper carry bag, which she had not agreed to purchase. The appellant argued that the purchase of paper carry bags was optional and voluntary for customers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's practice of charging for paper carry bags was against consumerism, constituted deficiency in service, and amounted to unfair trade practice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's practice of charging for paper carry bags constituted unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's practice of charging for paper carry bags was against consumerism, and the appellant failed to provide evidence authorizing the levy of additional charges for carry bags. The court also emphasized the appellant's failure to allow customers to bring their own carry bags.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order passed by the District Forum was upheld.
ORDER :
Rajesh K. Arya, Member—The appellant/opposite party has filed this appeal against order dated 18.1.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, complaint bearing No. 371 of 2018 filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed in the following manner:
“12. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Party is directed:
(i) To provide free carry bags to all customers forthwith who purchase articles from its Shop;
(ii) To refund to the Complainant the amount of Rs. 10 wrongly charged for the paper carry bag;
(iii) To pay Rs. 1,500 to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.
(iv) To pay Rs. 1,500 as litigation expenses.
(v) To deposit Rs. 10,000 in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No. 32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.
This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall be liable to pay the amount at Sr. No. (ii) to (iv) to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till its realization, besides compliance of directions as at Sr. No. (i). The amount mentioned at Sr. No. (v) be deposited in the account aforesaid, within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the same will carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till its deposit. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary (SCDRC), U.T. Chandigarh, for necessary action.”
2. Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that she selected and purchased certain garments from the Opposite Party OP-Shop and took them to the billing counter for making necessary payment. It was further stated that at the Counter, the Cashier handed over the said items put in a paper carry bag bearing advertisement name of the shop in big letters and logo. It was further stated that on reaching home, the complainant checked the bill/invoice and was shocked to see that the Opposite Party had charged Rs. 10 for the said bag. It was further stated that the complainant had not agreed to purchase any such item and in the entire Shop premises, it was nowhere mentioned that the Opposite Party would charge for a carry bag also. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, a complaint was filed before the Forum.
3. The opposite party, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that after the ban on Plastic bags by the Government, the Opposite Party is encouraging its customers to bring their own shopping bags and also offering paper bags to its customers on their request at nominal charges. It was further stated that the price of the carry bag was disclosed on the surface of the same and was duly mentioned in the invoice as well. It was further stated that the complainant was not compelled to purchase or take the carry bag from the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the Complainant had an option to carry her own reusable bag, if she intended to purchase the products from the store. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite party nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder wherein she reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those contained in the written version of opposite party.
5. The parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint as referred to above.
6. Counsel for the appel
