Back
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
JASBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT; MRS. PADMA PANDEY & MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBERS
LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
PANKAJ CHANDGOTHIA & ANR - Respondents
Appeal No. 24 of 2019
Decided On : 18-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rohan Mittal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate.
Charging for paper carry bags can constitute unfair trade practice and be against consumerism, especially when there is no legal obligation to do so.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer Rights - Plastic Waste Management and Handling Rules - [12, 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016] - The court found that the appellant's practice of charging for paper carry bags was against consumerism and amounted to unfair trade practice. The court upheld the forum's decision to direct the appellant to provide free carry bags to customers, refund the amount charged for the paper carry bag, and pay compensation for harassment and mental agony.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants purchased articles from the opposite party's shop and were charged Rs. 5 for a paper carry bag. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, a complaint was filed before the Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's practice of charging for paper carry bags was against consumerism and amounted to unfair trade practice. The court upheld the forum's decision to direct the appellant to provide free carry bags to customers, refund the amount charged for the paper carry bag, and pay compensation for harassment and mental agony.
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 amounted to unfair trade practice. The court also noted that the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016, which mandated retailers to charge for plastic carry bags, had been omitted in March 2018, and therefore, the appellant's contention that it could charge for paper carry bags was against the law.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order passed by the District Forum was upheld.
ORDER :
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBERS
1. The appellant/opposite party has filed this appeal against order dated 3.1.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, complaint bearing No. 438 of 2018 filed by the respondents/complainants 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 Complainants the amount of Rs. 5 wrongly charged for the paper carry bag;
(iii) To pay Rs. 1,500 to the complainants 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. Nos. (ii) to (iv) to the complainants 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 the complainants purchased certain articles from the opposite party-Shop and took them to the billing counter for making necessary payment. At the Counter, the Cashier handed over the said articles without putting them into a carry bag and when asked to provide the same, the complainants were told that they had to buy it for Rs. 5. It was further stated that in the entire shop premises, it was nowhere mentioned that the opposite party would charge for a carry bag also. It was further stated that having no option left, the complainants paid Rs. 5 additionally for the said carry bag. 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 of plastic bags by the Government, the opposite party purchased paper bags, which are much costlier than the plastic bags and started providing the same to its customers on payment basis. It was further stated that there was no legal obligation on the opposite party to provide any bag to carry purchased item for free to its customers. 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 he 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. While laying challenge to the impugned order, the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party argued that the appellant/opposite party is a retail store and as such, it does not fall within the purview of ‘service’ as contemplated in Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act. It was next argued that as per Rule 10 of The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, und
