Sangeeta Chandgothia vs M/S. Shopper's Stop

The present Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as the 'State Commission') whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein has been dismissed and the Order passed by the District Consumer Forum has been upheld. The State Commission had recorded the statement on Oath given by Mr. Santokh Singh, Unit Administration Head of the Respondent herein wherein he had stated that the Opposite Party after going through the reports in the newspaper, which was not justified, has now stopped charging for the price of paper bag.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned Order passed by the State Commission.

The submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the statement given by Mr. Santokh Singh and accepted and relied upon by the State Commission is totally against the fact stated in the Written Version filed before the District Consumer Forum wherein the Respondent-Opposite Party had accepted charging for the price of the paper carry bag and, therefore, this statement is an afterthought and only to get over the consequences arising out of the Order passed by the District Consumer Forum. The submission is totally misconceived. It is always open for any dealer or the manufacturer or the shop owner to change its Policy at any point of time and if Mr. Santokh Singh, Unit Administration head of the Respondent-Opposite Party has stated on Oath before the State Commission that Opposite Party has now stopped charging for the price of paper carry bag, there is no reason as to why the said statement should not have been accepted. It is always upon the State Commission either to accept or reject the statement on Oath given by any of the parties. The State Commission having accepted the statement on Oath given by Mr. Santokh Singh, Unit Administration Head of the Opposite Party, cannot be said to have acted illegally or contrary to law.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned Order passed by the State Commission in exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.