M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 90/2021 Reliance Smart, Reliance Retail Ltd.

Sai Sagar Hieght, Plot No. 1, 2 3, A.B. Road, Guna (M.P.) - 473 001 ... Appellant VERSUS.

Ankit Jain S/o Ramesh Kumar Jain, R/o Pathar Mohalla, District. Guna (M.P.)

PIN – 473 001 … Respondent BEFORE;

HON’BLE SHRI A.K. TIWARI, ACTING PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI HEERU PRASAD SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

NONE FOR RESPONDENT.

O R D E R

( 20 .06.2024 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the opposite party/appellant is directed against the order dated 13.1.2021, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guna (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case No. 238/2019, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent.

2. The complainant/appellant had alleged before the District Commission that on 11.6.2019, he had purchased certain house hold items from opposite party/appellant. According to complainant/respondent, he purchased 11 items but the opposite party/appellant had added 12^th item in the form of carry bag, in the bill raised by it. It is alleged that the said carry bag amounting to Rs.6/-, carries advertisement of the opposite party- Company. The complainant/respondent alleged deficiency in service against opposite party/appellant in selling the said carry bag, when the complainant/respondent did not intend to buy the same.

3. The opposite party/appellant resisted the complaint on the ground that the customers purchase carry bags from their establishment for their convenience and there has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party/appellant.

4. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party/appellant to refund Rs.6/-, i.e. cost of the carry bag, to the complainant/respondent, within a period of one month. Additionally, Rs.500/- as compensation, Rs.500/- as cost of litigation and Rs.500/- as counsel fee have also been awarded to the complainant/respondent. Hence this appeal.

5. Heard.

6. Learned counsel for opposite party/appellant argued that carry bag was given to the complainant/respondent for his convenience, in order to carry the items purchased by him.

Since the Government has banned plastic bags, the opposite party/appellant gives carry bags to the customers for keeping the purchased items. The complainant/respondent has made false allegations against the opposite party/appellant and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Tripura State Commission dated 13.3.2023 in case No. A 32 of 2022.

7. Having gone through the record of the District Commission, impugned order, as also the appeal memo, there is no doubt that the complainant/respondent was charged Rs.6/- on the pretext of selling a bag, since the bill invoice annexed as ‘C- 1’ in the record shows 12^th item as a bag amounting to Rs.6/-. It is alleged by the complainant/respondent that he never intended to buy a carry bag. Also the carry bag contained advertisement of the opposite party/appellant establishment. This fact has not been controverted by the opposite party/appellant. In the judgment relied upon by the opposite party/appellant, the allegations that the salesboy of the shop forced the customer to purchase carry bag were not proved but in the instant matter, opposite party/appellant has stated to have sold the said carry bag to the complainant/respondent, when the complainant/respondent has specifically submitted that he had never asked to buy it and he was surprised to know that the one has been sold to him, when he saw the bill which was issued to him. We thus hold that the judgment relied is distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand and is, therefore, not applicable in the instant matter.

8. Charging for a carry bag which co