Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member
Taken up through video conferencing
Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) – Petitioner
versus
Ashok Kumar and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.975 of 2020, Revision Petition No.976 of 2020, Revision Petition No.977 of 2020, Revision Petition No.978 of 2020, Revision Petition No.979 of 2020, Revision Petition No.980 of 2020, Revision Petition No.981 of 2020, Revision Petition No.982 of 2020, Revision Petition No.983 of 2020, Revision Petition No.984 of 2020, Revision Petition No.985 of 2020, Revision Petition No.986 of 2020, Revision Petition No.987 of 2020 and Revision Petition No.988 of 2020
Decided on 22.12.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Saumya Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Yogita Rathore, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Imposing additional cost of carry bags on the consumers at the time of making payment amounts to unfair trade practice.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b), 14(1)(f) and 2(1)(r) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58(1)(b), 39(1)(g) and 2(47)] – Retail outlet – Charging additional cost for carry bags – Scope – Charging additional cost of Rs. 18/- for carry bag to carry the goods purchased by the complainant has been held by fora below to be deficiency and unfair trade practice on part of the petitioner company – Challenge against – Normal practice in retail outlets is to provide carry bags without additional cost – Carry bags sold at a particular price to consumer are in themselves goods – Imposing additional cost of carry bags on the consumer at the time of making payment amounts to unfair trade practice – Petitioner company directed to discontinue such practice of imposing additional cost of carry bags on the consumers – Petitions disposed of.
Held: It is well evident from the examination made by the two Fora below that earlier the Opposite Party Co. was providing carry bags made of polythene to its consumers without charging additional cost. Later it dispensed with polythene and substituted cloth in its stead and started charging additional cost for the cloth carry bags. Prominent prior notice / signs / announcement / advertisement / warning to the consumers, before the consumers exercised their choice to make their purchases from the outlets of the Opposite Party Co., that additional cost will be charged for carry bags, was not there. Consumers were under the impression that as per the earlier practice of the Opposite Party Co., and as per the normal practice in retail outlets in general, no additional cost would be charged for the carry bags. Consumers were not allowed / were not in a position to / did not have prior notice or information to take their own carry bags. After making their purchases, at the time of making the payment, additional cost for carry bags was imposed on the consumers.
The argument made by learned senior Counsel, in the hearing on admission on 01.12.2020, that in “similar” cases of other traders notice has been issued by co-ordinate benches of this Commission, is not tenable.
The Complainant has already proved his case in two Consumer Protection Fora. Here, a company, with wherewithal, is on the one side, and an ordinary common consumer, without wherewithal, is on the other side. Putting him to trouble in a third Forum (this Commission), when no case is made out on merit in the revision preferred before this Commission, would be inappropriate and albeit compromise the aims and objects of the statute.
It is well evinced that earlier the Opposite Party Co. was providing carry bags made of polythene to its consumers without charging additional cost.
As a matter of Consumer Rights, the consumer has the right to know that there will be an additional cost for carry bags (the same being a deviation from the normal wont in retail outlets in general), and also to know the salient specifications and price of the carry bags, before he exercises his choice of patronizing a particular retail outlet and before he makes his selection of goods for purchase from the said retail outlet.
The Opposite Party Co. through its Chief Executive is ordered under Section 39(1)(g) of the Act 2019 [corresponding Section 14(1)(f) of the Act 1986] to forthwith discontinue its unfair trade practice of arbitrarily and highhandedly imposing additional cost of carry bags on the consumer at the time of making payment, without prominent prior notice and information before the consumer makes his choice of patronizing its retail outlets and before the consumer makes his selection of goods for purchase, as also without disclosing the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. The necessary notice / signs / announcement / advertisement / warning should be in the place and manner as may enable the consumer to make his informed choice of whether or not to patronize its retail outlets, and whether or not to make his selection of goods for purchase from its retail outlets. The notice or information cannot be at the occasion of making payment, after the consumer has exercised his choice to patronize its retail outlet, and after he has made his selection of goods for purchase.
There is no hesitation in dismissing the Opposite Party Co.’s case. The Opposite Party Co. through its Chief Executive shall ensure compliance of the Award made by the District Forum, as upheld and sustained by the State Commission, within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order. The District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law for failure or omission in compliance within the stipulated period (paras 15 and 17).
Towards this end, the Registry is directed to send a copy each of this Order to the Chief Executive of the Opposite Party Co. and to the District Forum, as also to the Complainant, within three days of its pronouncement.
It may be added that the liability qua the Complainant continues, as a continuing wrong. It is made explicit that the critique apropos the Opposite Party Co. and the order under Section 39(1)(g) of the Act 2019 to the Opposite Party Co. have been made inter alia considering that it is a company with the wherewithal and inter alia considering the way and manner in which it conducts its business of retail. The R.P.s No. 976 of 2020 to No. 988 of 2020 are disposed of, mutatis mutandis, with similar directions, in terms of the examination and reasons contained hereinabove apropos R.P. No. 975 of 2020, the lead-case. (Paras 10 to 23)
Result: Petition disposed of.
ORDER
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member.—These fourteen (14) Revision Petitions have been filed in challenge to the Order dated 18.05.2020 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (the ‘State Commission’) in Appeals No. 238, No. 239, No. 240, No. 243, No. 244, No. 246, No. 247, No. 248, No. 250, No. 274, No. 275, No. 276, No. 277 and No. 300 of 2019, arising out of the Orders dated 02.09.2019 in C.C. No. 124 of 2019, dated 03.09.2019 in C. C. No. 125 of 2019, dated 04.09.2019 in C. C. No. 126 of 2019, dated 05.09.2019 in C. C.s No. 89 of 2019, No. 181 of 2019, No. 90 of 2019, No. 179 of 2019, dated 17.09.2019 in C.C. No. 218 of 2019, dated 16.10.2019 in C.C. No. 224 of 2019, No. 223 of 2019, dated 17.10.2019 in C.C. No. 162 of 2019 and dated 18.10.2019 in C.C. No. 199 of 2019 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (the ‘District Forum’).
2. Heard arguments on admission from Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar, learned senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Saumya Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Perused the material on record including inter alia the Orders of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 18.05.2020 of the State Commission and the Petition.
3. These fourteen (14) Petitions have been filed against a common order (the Order dated 18.05.2020) of the State Commission, similar facts and same questions of law are involved.
As such, the fourteen (14) Petitions are being disposed of vide the instant common order, with the Revision Petition No. 975 of 2020 being taken as the lead–case.
Revision Petition No. 975 of 2020
4. The Petitioner, Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) was the Opposite Party before the District Forum (the ‘Opposite Party Co.’).
The Respondent, Mr. Ashok Kumar, was the Complainant before the District Forum (the ‘Complainant’).
5. The Petition has been filed with self-admitted delay of 60 days. The stated reasons for delay, as contained in the application for condonation of delay, point towards managerial inefficiency and perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, they are illogical and unpersuasive in explaining convincingly and cogently the delay in filing the revision.
However, in the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the Opposite Party Co., to settle the matter on merit, the delay is condoned.
6. The short point involved is that charging additional cost (Rs. 18/- in this case) for carry bag(s), to carry the goods purchased by the Complainant, has been held by the two Fora below, the District Forum and the State Commission, to be deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party Co.
7. The Complaint was instituted before the District Forum under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’).
The District Forum heard both sides, made its appraisal of the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 05.09.2019, determined deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party Co.
It ordered the Opposite Party Co. to refund the cost of the carry bag(s) and pay compensation of Rs. 100/- and cost of litigation of Rs.1100/- to the Complainant and to deposit Rs. 5000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum. The Order was to be complied with within one month, failing which the amounts awarded will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the Order till realisation / deposit.
The District Forum’s findings are summed-up in paras 6, 7 and 8 of its Order, which are reproduced below for ready appreciation:
6. The factum of charging additional price for providing carry bags to its customers has not been disputed by the OP. The argument put forward by the OP is that the rates and photographs of the carry bags are displayed at various display boards in the store and the carry bags are sold on no profit no loss basis and the consumers are requested to carry their own bags and that a separate charge would be payable in case the consumer wished to obtain a new carry bag. H
