LI Network
Published on: 21 September 2023 at 14:57 IST
Reliance Trends has faced a fine imposed by the Consumer Court for taking a Rs 7 charge on carry bags.
The case was brought before the bench presided over by President Shri S.S. Malhotra, following a complaint lodged by a customer against the defendant (OP) regarding a service deficiency issue related to the Rs 7 charge for carry bags.
According to the complainant’s account, they had made a purchase of two items from Reliance Trends (OP2). However, upon reaching the billing counter, the billing clerk insisted on charging an additional Rs 7 for a carry bag. The complainant argued that this charge was unjustified and was levied under duress, constituting a clear deficiency in service. Consequently, the complainant sought a refund of the Rs 7 charge along with compensation totaling Rs 25,000.
In response, the OP contended that the complaint was baseless and motivated solely by the complainant’s desire for personal gain. They asserted that carry bags were offered as a saleable item in their stores, and customers had the option to purchase them voluntarily; no compulsion was involved.
The Consumer Court, however, observed that the OP could not charge customers for carry bags, especially for items bought within their store. It was determined that imposing such charges amounted to a deficiency in service. Additionally, the OP was expected to display clear signage at various locations within the store, making it known that carry bags were available for sale.
The court noted that the OP failed to provide any evidence or photographs to substantiate their claim of displaying such signage or informing customers through open circulation. Without concrete proof or documentation supporting the OP’s position, the complainant’s arguments remained unrefuted.
As a result of these findings, the bench ruled in favor of the complainant, ordering the OP to refund the Rs 7 charge for the carry bag. Moreover, the OP was directed to compensate the complainant with Rs 3,000 for the mental and physical distress caused, including litigation expenses.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Tripathi v. M/S Reliance Retail Ltd.