Appeal No. : 65 of 2020 Appeal No. : 278 of 2019 Date of Institution : 15.10.2019 Date of Decision : 11.02.2021 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Gurpreet Singh son of Sh.Jaspal Singh resident of House No.1169-C, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant Present through Video Conferencing :- Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent already exparte vide order dated 01.12.2020. ===================================================================== Appeal No. : 118 of 2020 Date of Institution : 15.09.2020 Date of Decision : 11.02.2021 Date of Institution : 09.03.2020 Date of Decision : 11.02.2021 Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Sonia Dhawan D/o Sh. Pawan Dhawan R/o H.No.H-83, Panchsheel Enclave, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab. ..Respondent/complainant Present through Video Conferencing :- Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent already exparte vide order dated 01.12.2020. ===================================================================== Appeal No. : 119 of 2020 Date of Institution : 15.09.2020 Date of Decision : 11.02.2021 Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Bharat Dawar son of not known resident of House No.1263, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant Present through Video Conferencing :- Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. ===================================================================== Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Sourav Kumar son of not known resident of House No.1087, Sector 15, Panchkula. Appeal No. : 120 of 2020 Date of Institution : 15.09.2020 Date of Decision : 11.02.2021 ..Respondent/complainant Present through Video Conferencing :- Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. ===================================================================== Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Bharat Dawar son of not known resident of House No.1263, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant Present through Video Conferencing :- Appeal No. : 121 of 2020 Date of Institution : 15.09.2020 Date of Decision : 11.02.2021 Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. ===================================================================== Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Amritveer Singh son of Sh.Vikram Pandit resident of House No.1187, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160009. ..Respondent/complainant Present through Video Conferencing :- Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent already exparte vide order dated 29.01.2021. ===================================================================== Appeal No. : 123 of 2020 Date of Institution : 15.09.2020 Date of Decision : 11.02.2021 Appeal No. : 122 of 2020 Date of Institution : 15.09.2020 Date of Decision : 11.02.2021 Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Aditya Pandit son of Sh.Vikram Pandit, resident of House No.1187, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160009. ..Respondent/complainant Present through Video Conferencing :- Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Shiti Jain Dutt, Advocate for the respondent. ================================================================== Appeal No. : 124 of 2020 Date of Institution : 15.09.2020 Date of Decision : 11.02.2021 Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Neha Sharma aged about 30 years wife of Sh.Lalit Sharma resident of House No.242, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant Present through Video Conferencing :- Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent already exparte vide order dated 01.12.2020. ================================================================== Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appellant/Opposite Party Appeal No. : 125 of 2020 Date of Institution : 15.09.2020 Date of Decision : 11.02.2021 V e r s u s Preeti Kalia wife of Sh.Anirudh Gupta resident of House No.3494, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant Present through Video Conferencing :- Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent already exparte vide order dated 01.12.2020. ================================================================================== Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Preeti Kalia wife of Sh.Anirudh Gupta resident of House No.3494, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant Present through Video Conferencing :- Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Appeal No. : 127 of 2020 Appeal No. : 126 of 2020 Date of Institution : 15.09.2020 Date of Decision : 11.02.2021 Respondent already exparte vide order dated 01.12.2020. ===================================================================== Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Karan Singla son of Sh.Vijay Singla resident of H.No.1815, Nirvana Society, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant Present through Video Conferencing :- Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent already exparte vide order dated 01.12.2020. ==================================================================== Appeal No. : 130 of 2020 Date of Institution : 25.09.2020 Date of Decision : 11.02.2021 Date of Institution : 15.09.2020 Date of Decision : 11.02.2021 Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Shubham son of Sh.Karam Chand, resident of House No.2883, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant Present through Video Conferencing :- Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent already exparte vide order dated 29.01.2021. =================================================================== -10- Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Priyanka Bhatia wife of Sh.Nitish Bhatia, resident of # 5 B, Army Flats, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant Present through Video Conferencing :- Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent already exparte vide order dated 01.12.2020. Appeals U/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER By this order, we propose to dispose of the afore-captioned appeals as common questions of law and facts have been originated therefrom. All these appeals have been originated from the orders passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I & II (now District Commissions I & II), U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), vide which the consumer complaints filed by complainant(s) (respondent(s) herein) were allowed and the appellant(s) was/were directed to refund the respective amounts charged towards carry bags; to pay compensation/damages for harassment and mental agony ; litigation expenses and also to deposit the amount in the Consumer Legal Aid Account, in the respective consumer complaints. Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. At the time of arguments, it -11- was agreed by the contesting parties, that facts involved in the above appeals, by and large, are the same, and therefore, the same can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order. Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from First Appeal No.278 of 2019 titled as Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Gurpreet Singh . In the present case i.e. First Appeal No.278 of 2019 ( ), before District CC/225/2019 Forum-I (now District Commission-I), U.T., Chandigarh, it was the case of the respondent/complainant that on 02.04.2019, vide bill Annexure C-1, he purchased some articles worth Rs.1014/- from the appellant/Opposite Party - Big Bazaar. However, in the said bill, it was found that the appellant had charged Rs.18/- in excess on account of carry bag for packing the purchased items/articles, to which, he resisted but to no avail. It has been the case of the respondent/complainant that the said act of the appellant/Opposite Party, by charging for the carry bag, amounted to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. On notice being issued, the appellant/Opposite Party while admitting the factual matrix of the case pleaded that it had rightly charged for the paper bag from the respondent/complainant; that the respondent had consented for purchase of the said carry bag; that the appellant had advertised/displayed at its premises stating that consumers are requested to carry their own bags and that separate charges will be taken in case they wish to obtain new carry bag from the appellant/Opposite Party. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. Similar is the case, in other consumer complaints also, out of which these appeals have arisen. The parties led evidence, in support of their cases, before the respective District Commissions. The District Commissions after hearing the contesting parties had passed the impugned orders, allowing the consumer complaints, with following details, out of which these appeals have arisen:- S.No. FA No. Title Charged for carry Impugned Order dated District Forum (now District Commission) 278/2019 in CC No.225/19 Big Bazaar Vs. Gurpreet Singh Rs.18/- 18.10.2019 DCDRC-I 65/2020 in CC No.639/19 Big Bazaar Vs. Sonia Dhawan Rs.18/- 30.01.2020 DCDRC-I 118/2020 in CC No.127/2019 Big Bazaar Vs. Bharat Dawar Rs.18/- 05.03.2020 DCDRC-II -12- 119/2020 in CC No.128/19 Big Bazaar Vs. Sourav Kumar Rs.18/- 05.03.2020 DCDRC-II 120/2020 in CC No.623/19 Big Bazaar Vs. Bharat Dawar Rs.10/- 13.11.2019 DCDRC-II 121/2020 in CC No.631/19 Big Bazaar Vs. Amritveer Singh Rs.18/- 03.02.2020 DCDRC-II 122/2020 in CC No.777/19 Big Bazaar Vs. Aditya Pandit Rs.24/- 12.02.2020 DCDRC-II 123/2020 in CC No.868/19 Big Bazaar Vs. Neha Sharma Rs.48/- 06.07.2020 DCDRC-II 124/2020 in CC No.870/19 Big Bazaar Vs. Preeti Kalia Rs.12/- 06.07.2020 DCDRC-II 125/2020 in CC No.871/19 Big Bazaar Vs. Preeti Kalia Rs.12/- 06.07.2020 DCDRC-II 126/2020 in CC No.894/19 Big Bazaar Vs. Karan Singla Rs.18/- 11.05.2020 DCDRC-II 127/2020 in CC No.1007/2019 Big Bazaar Vs. Shubham Rs.12/- 03.08.2020 DCDRC-II 130/2020 -13- in CC No.1069/2019 Big Bazaar Vs. Priyanka Bhatia Rs.24/- 29.07.2020 DCDRC-I We have heard the contesting parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record, including the written arguments, submitted by the appellant/Opposite Party concerned. In all the appeals, Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party argued that the amount towards the carry bags was rightly charged from the respondent(s)/complainant(s), keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, which says that no carry bags shall be provided free of costs by retailers to the consumers. He further argued that the appellant/Opposite Party has stopped using plastic carry bags for the sake of saving the environment. He further argued that the cost of the carry bag was rightly charged from the respondent/complainant, as the respondent had consented for purchase of the said carry bag and even the appellant had advertised/displayed at its premises stating that consumers are requested to carry their own bags and that separate charges will be taken in case they wish to obtain new carry bag from the appellant/Opposite Party. He further submitted that the appellant/Opposite Party is providing carry bags, which did not contain an advertisement of the appellant. Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party has also given reference of the common judgment passed by the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.975 of 2020 titled as Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar and in other connected revision petitions, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party, where, the said Commission dismissed all the revision petitions vide order dated 22.12.2020 taking a plea that imposing additional cost of carry bags on the consumer at the time of making payment without prominent prior notice by displaying the signboards is an unfair trade practice. He has further argued that the necessary notice/signboards were already displayed on the counter and the customer is asked He further submitted that the impugnedabout the carry bags before purchase of the items. orders passed by the District Commissions allowing the consumer complaints are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be set aside and that the complaints deserve dismissal. On the other hand, Sh. Sahil Dawar, Advocate, Counsel for the respondent(s)/complainant(s) in three appeals i.e. bearing Nos.118/2020, 119/2020 & 120/2020 and Ms. Shiti Jain Dutt, Advocate, Counsel for the respondent(s)/complainant(s) in one appeal bearing No.122/2020, stated that the carry bags have been given for the purpose of packing of the purchased articles without asking or demand; and that the appellant has no right to charge for the carry bags; and that the orders passed by the District Commissions are fully legal and are liable to be upheld. This Commission has considered the rival contentions and meticulously gone through the material available on the record. It may be stated here that it is well settled law that each seller is obliged to deliver the goods in the complete state of delivery. The delivery of goods means physically handing over the goods from buyer to seller in a complete deliverable state. The goods can be delivered straight, when these are fully packed as per the nature and environment affecting the goods. The packing of goods is also a state in putting the goods in the deliverable state. If one wants to buy biscuits or bread, those should not be given in open and rather should be packed in such a manner, to save them from external atmosphere. All kinds of expenses incurred in order to putting goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller. -14-

6. As far as the question of displaying the signboards are concerned, Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party sent common order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition and in No.975 of 2020 titled as Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar other connected revision petitions through email alongwith written arguments, which was dismissed by the said Commission by taking plea in para No.15 of the said order, which reads thus :-

The Opposite Party Co. through its Chief Executive is ordered under15. Section 39(1)(g) of the Act 2019 [corresponding Section 14(1)(f) of the Act 1986] to forthwith discontinue its unfair trade practice of arbitrarily and highhandedly imposing additional cost of carry bags on the consumer at the time of making payment, without prominent prior notice and information before the consumer makes his choice of patronizing its retail outlets and before the consumer makes his selection of goods for purchase, as also without disclosing the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. The necessary notice / signs / announcement / advertisement / warning should be in the place and manner as may enable the consumer to make his informed choice of whether or not to patronize its retail outlets, and whether or not to make his selection of goods for purchase from its retail outlets. The notice or information cannot be at the occasion of making payment, after the consumer has exercised his choice to patronize its retail outlet, and after he has made his selection of goods for purchase.

The afore-extracted para of the judgment clearly reveals that imposing additional cost of carry bags on the consumer at the time of making payment without prominent prior notice by displaying the signboards is unfair trade practice. The plea taken by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party submitted that necessary notice/signboards were already displayed on the counter and the customer is asked about the carry bags before purchase of the items, has no value at all because the complaints are pertaining to the year 2019 i.e. the year by which this Commission has already decided number of cases, wherein, it has been held that there was no signboards with regard to carry bags, which has already attained finality. However, it is very strange that now the appellant/Opposite Party is taking contrary stand which is with a view to defeat the genuine claim of the respondents/complainant(s) by saying that all the signboards were displayed at the shop. Even the appellant/Opposite Party failed to place on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence in the shape of any rules/instructions authorizing it to levy charge additionally for the carry bag from the gullible consumers. It is, no doubt, true that in the stores of the appellant/Big Bazaar, the customers purchase all the items i.e. grocery, cloths, stationary and all the items of daily needs. It is a matter of common knowledge that if the customers visit Mall like Elante and suddenly make a mind to purchase lot of items from appellant store then it is not feasible to carry lot of bags from home. In the aforesaid judgment, the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission clearly held that imposing additional cost of carry bags on the consumer at the time of making payment, without prominent prior notice and information before the consumer makes his choice of patronizing its retail outlets and before the consumer makes his selection of goods for purchase, as also without disclosing the salient specifications and price of . However, in the instant case, when the customers chose the items and went forthe carry bags payment at the counter, suddenly, it was asked for making additional payment of carry bags, without giving any prior notice, which amounted to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Therefore, the plea of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party stands rejected. -15-

1. Earlier also, a similar question fell for determination before this Commission in First Appeal No.238 of 2019 titled as Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar, decided wherein while negating the plea taken by Big Bazaar, the appeals filed by iton 18.05.2020 were dismissed and the orders passed by the District Commissions I and II were upheld by holding as under:- Our above view is supported by the provisions of Sub Section (5) of Section 36 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which makes it absolutely clear that unless otherwise agreed, the expenses of and incidental to putting the goods into a deliverable state, shall be borne by the seller. Thus, under this provision of law, all the expenses with regard to packing, providing carry bags etc. shall be borne by the vendor in order to put the goods into a deliverable state. In the present cases also, the goods with different brands name i.e. macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., were put in the carry-bags by the appellant, in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to the respondents. The appellant has failed to prove its case that the carry-bag was separately purchased by the respondents/purchasers of their own free will, rather, the appellant has used the same for the purpose of putting the above said goods to make them into a deliverable state. Thus, all the expenses required and incurred to make the goods into a deliverable state for handing over to the purchasers thereof, were to be borne by the appellant. In this view of the matter, the appellant has no right to recover the expenses borne by it on the packing of the goods or putting the goods in a carry bag for making the same in a deliverable state. At the time of arguments, when confronted with the above situation, Counsel for the appellant with a view to buttress her cases, placed heavy reliance on provisions of Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, to contend that the appellant was not bound to provide carry bags, free of cost, to the respondents. Relevant part of the said Rule is reproduced hereunder:-

. - No carry bags shall be made10 Explicit pricing of carry bags available free of cost by retailers to consumers. The concerned municipal authority may by notification determine the minimum price for carry bags depending upon their quality and size which covers their material and waste management costs in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation.

No doubt, from Rule 10 afore-extracted, it is evident that no carry bags shall be available free of cost by the retailers to customers, yet, when we go through Rule 3 of the said Rules, under the heading , it is found thatDefinition the said "carry bags" means bags made from any plastic material, used for the but do not include bags that purpose of carrying or dispensing commodities constitute or form an integral part of the packaging in which goods are sealed prior to use. Relevant part of the said Rule reads as under:- " " means bags made from any plastic material, used forcarry bags the purpose of carrying or dispensing commodities but do not -16- include bags that constitute or form an integral part of the packaging in which goods are sealed prior to use;] When we read the said Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, as a whole, it reveals that the said Rules have been framed with a view to enforce the provisions relating to the use, collection, segregation, transportation and disposal and also the conditions to be fulfilled during theof plastic waste course of manufacture, stocking, distribution, sale and use of carry bags and . Thus, Rule 10 sachets, in order to save the environment relates to explicit pricing , used for the purpose of carrying or of carry bags, made from any plastic material dispensing commodities, to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation, to save the environment. Whereas, in the present cases, as stated above, the appellant failed to deliver the goods in the complete state of delivery and on the other hand, charged for the carry bags made of jute, which was required to put the goods i.e. macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to the respondents; thereby violating the provisions of Sub Section (5) of Section 36 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, referred to above, which says that all the expenses with regard to packing etc. shall be borne by the vendor in order to put the goods into a deliverable state. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the appellant from the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules 2011. It was also vehemently contended by Counsel for the appellant that the purchase of carry bag is entirely optional and is a voluntary act by a consumer. However, in the same breath, it was also contended by her that the customers cannot bring their own carry bags containing items/goods purchased from other shops. It may be stated here that, once we have already held that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller, as such, the contention raised does not merit acceptance. Ever otherwise, as per the contention raised by Counsel for the appellant, on the one hand, purchase of carry bags is made optional & voluntary but at the same time, the consumer/customer is not allowed to enter the shop with their own carry bags containing some goods purchased from other shop premises. We cannot expect that for every single item/article intended to be purchased by a customer, he/she needs to carry separate carry bags. For e.g. if a customer wants to purchase, say about 15 in number, daily-use goods/articles like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad, soap, toothpaste, shaving cream, pen, pencil etc., from different shops, we cannot expect him/her to take 15 carry bags from home, for the same. Thus, by not allowing the customers to carry their own carry bags by the appellant in its premises, there was no option left with them to buy the carry bags alongwith the goods purchased, to carry the same from the shop-premises. We are shocked to note the kind of services provided by these big Malls/Showrooms. One cannot be expected to take the goods like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., purchased, in hands. By not allowing the customers to bring in the shop premises, their own carry bags, and thrusting its own carry bags against consideration, the appellant is deficient in providing service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. No case is made out to reverse the findings of the respective District Commission in each appeal. -17- For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that all these appeals are devoid of merit and the same deserve dismissal. Consequently all the above captioned appeals are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The orders of the District Commission in each appeal are upheld. In the present appeals also, being facts and circumstances of similar nature and against the same company, nothing new has been placed on record by the appellant, to convince this Commission, to give any contrary findings. For the reasons recorded above, it is held that the orders passed by District Commissions-I and II allowing the consumer complaints do not need any interference and as such are upheld. Resultantly, these appeals being devoid of merit, stand dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy thereof be placed in all the connected appeal files. The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced 11.02.2021 Sd/- [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/- (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Sd/- (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER -18- -19-