CHANDIGARH CONSUMER COMMISSION ORDERED 24 SEVEN STORE TO PAY RS.25 K FOR CHARGING EXTRA MONEY FOR CARRY BAGS

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh in the case Jaspreet Singh v. 24 Seven, Sector 26, Chandigarh through Nodal Officer observed and has ordered a store of grocery chain ‘24Seven’ to pay ₹25,000 for billing ₹10 and ₹20 from a consumer towards the expenses for the carry bags which are upon purchase of grocery items. Further, it has been ordered by the Commission to the store to pay ₹100 to the complainant as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and ₹1100 as litigation expenses. The court has directed the store to refund the amount including the cost of two carry bags within 45 days, further, directing the commission to deposit Rs. 25,000 in the ‘Account of ‘Consumer Legal Aid’ of State Commission, UT Chandigarh by way of punitive damages. Therefore, the order was being passed by the ex parte. The court while holding it to be an instance of ‘deficiency in service’ as well a case of ‘unfair trade practice’ on part of the store, the member presiding Priti Malhotra and Member S.K. Sardana stated that it has been held by the bench headed by our Honorable State Commission that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller. Here the view of the court is bolstered by the judgment dated 18.05.2020 of our Honorable State Commission passed in F. A. No. 238/2019 in the case Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) v. Ashok Kumar… and the law laid down which is in the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The lawyer Jaspreet Singh, filed the complaint, who purchased certain grocery items worth Rs 1250 on 16.11.2021 and was billed ₹10 for the carry bag. Thus, he again has bought some goods on 02.03.2022 and was again asked to buy a cotton carry bag with the logo of the store, worth ₹20. The court observed that as per the complainant, he was denied for carrying of bag despite his requests and explanation to the store manager that extra money could not be charged in view of the law. Therefore, a legal notice was also served upon the store requesting for a refund, but that to no avail. Accordingly, the complainant aggrieved with the same, approached the Commission citing ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice.’