##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN Date of Admission: 21.04.2026 Date of Final Hearing: 27.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2026 SC/5/A/25/2024 Dr. Ramesh Singh Danu S/o late Roop Singh R/o Dubkiya, Almora District Almora (Through: Ms. Chandra Kala, Advocate)

…… Appellant Versus Vishal Mega Mart through Manager, L.R. Shah Road Almora, District Almora (Through: Sh. Rahul Gupta, Advocate)

…… Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. B.S. Manral, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This is complainant’s appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.08.2024 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Almora (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 28 of 2023, styled as Dr. Ramesh Singh Danu Vs. Vishal Mega Mart, whereby the consumer complaint filed by the appellant / complainant was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that on 18.01.2023, the appellant / complainant had made purchase of certain goods at the respondent / opposite party – Vishal Mega Mart, for which bill No. 7051580048832 for Rs. 1,435/- was issued by the Store. In the bill so raised by the respondent / opposite party, an amount of Rs. 18/- was charged towards shopping / carry bag, which amounts to unfair trade practice on their part. In this regard, the complainant through his counsel sent a legal notice dated 27.01.2023 to the opposite party, but to no avail. Thus, the complainant was forced to institute a consumer complaint before the District Commission.

3. The respondent / opposite party filed written statement before the District Commission and pleaded that after purchase of the items by the complainant, at the time of billing, the Store Executive at the cash counter had duly apprised the complainant about the charges of different types of carry bags and it was also informed that in case the complainant does not want to purchase a carry bag, he has an option to use his own carry bag. Moreover, it has clearly been displayed at the billing counter and also at various places in the Store that the customer may purchase the carry bags of different variants as per their requirement, which are available at the Store at different prices. The complainant himself chose to purchase the carry bag worth Rs. 18/-. The Store is not liable to provide carry bag to the customer without any charge / cost. There exists no law that mandates free provisioning of carry bag to the customer. There has not been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, hence the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the material available on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.08.2024. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission as appellant.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. There is no averment in the consumer complaint that he was forced / compelled by the Store Executive present at the cash counter to purchase the carry bag. If the complainant was not willing to purchase the carry bag, there was no compulsion upon him to have purchase the same and he should have taken the goods purchased by him at the Store, on his own arrangement. It is not the case of the complainant that at the time of billing, he made any protest against charging of amount against the carry bag. The complainant had chosen to purchase the carry bag at his own free will. The complainant had an option not to purchase the goods from the Store by requesting the employees of the Store for not generating the bill, but he did not do so and the complainant made the