The district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, penalised Arvind Lifestyle Brand Limited, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, for charging ₹7 for a carry bag. Apart from depositing ₹10,000 in the consumer legal aid account, the store was told to pay ₹1,007 as compensation to the city resident along with ₹500 as litigation expenses.
The forum’s order came on a complaint filed by a consumer, Rajeev Sharma of Manimajra in Chandigarh. Sharma told the consumer panel that on May 28, he had bought certain items from Arvind Lifestyle store for ₹1,405. He said the store charged him ₹7 for carry bag even when he did not intend to buy it.
Alleging that there has been an unfair trade practice on part of the store, Sharma prayed for compensation with costs of litigation. In the court, as nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party, that is Arvind Lifestyle Brands Limited, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
The forum observed, “The non-appearance of the opposite party shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.”
It further observed, “It would have been very odd and inconvenient for complainant to carry the items purchased in hand throughout without a carry bag.” “At any rate, charges of such things (carry bags) cannot be separately foisted upon the consumers and would amount to overcharging. In this manner, definitely and surely, the complainant and other gullible consumers like him have certainly been taken for a ride by the opposite party,” it added.
According to the forum, the opposite party has several stores across the country and in the above said manner, made lot of money, thus, the act of forcing the gullible consumers to pay additionally for the carry bags amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice.
Penalising the store, the forum mentioned in its order, “The sequence of the events of the present case, clearly establishes the high headedness of the opposite party of which the complainant became the victim and felt the burnt, as a result the complainant has been left with no alternative, except to knock the doors of this forum, which further aggravated his pain and harassment.”
FIRM TO PAY ₹56,000 TO PANCHKULA SCHOOL FOR DEFICIENT SERVICES
Taking note of the complaint filed by Doon Public School, Panchkula, the district consumer forum fined Arm Winsys Tech Private Limited, Mohali, for deficiency in services.
The forum directed the firm and its sales officer Sapna Arora to make a payment of ₹56,546 to Doon Public School, Panchkula. It also directed them to pay compensation of ₹15,000 for causing “immense mental agony and harassment,” along with litigation cost of ₹8,000.
According to the complaint filed by the school authorities, an order on August 1, 2018, was placed with M/s Arm Winsys for installation of unplasticised polyvinyl chloride (UPVC) doors and windows at the first floor of the kindergarten Block in the school premises in Sector 21, Panchkula.
As per the complaint, the school had made a payment of ₹1, 50,000, for the services, which were not provided to them even after three months of placing
However, after much persuasion, the sales officer visited the school in December 2018, but without required number of UPVC windows and frames, alleged the school authorities.
They further alleged that the sales officer brought unskilled labourers along with her and instructed them to install the windows, frames and window glasses.
When the authorities contacted the firm again to finish the pending work and the workers did not turn up, they were was forced to engage another contractor to execute the incomplete work for which they had to pay extra amount, mentioned the complaint.
Following this, the school authorities filed a complaint. In the court, the opposite parties did not turn up, hence they were proceeded ex parte.
The forum observed, “Allegations supported with duly sworn affidavit establish the deficiency as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In this view of the matter, the complaint deserves to be allowed.”
Source: Read Full Article