Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
Bata India Limited – Petitioner
versus
Dinesh Parshad Raturi and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.1715 of 2019 and 774 of 2020
Decided on 27.112024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Appeal – Charging of Additional price – For Carry bags – Legality of – The factum of charging additional price for providing carry bags to its customers has not been disputed by the OP – Thus, the Opposite Party has miserably failed to produce 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 – In this backdrop, charges of such things (carry bags) cannot be separately foisted upon the consumers and the same would amount to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP – Besides this, if the Opposite Party claims itself to be responsible and environmentally conscious, then they should have given the carry bags to the customers free of cost because in the considered view, the price of the carry bag has generally been included by them in the profit margins of the product(s) – It was for gain of the OP. By employing unfair trade practice, the OP is minting lot of money from the gullible customers from all their stores situated across the country – As a matter of Consumer Rights, the consumer has the right to know that there will be an additional cost for carry bags (the same being a deviation from the normal wont in retail outlets in general), and also to know the salient specifications and price of the carry bags, before he exercises his choice of patronizing a particular retail outlet and before he makes his selection of goods for purchase from the said retail outlet – 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 purchase of such carry bag(s) by the Complainant/Customers at a price fixed by the Petitioner, has to be made optional and the Petitioner cannot mandatedly sell such carry bags to the customer(s) along with goods/products bought from it, the customer has the choice, whether to buy such carry bag or not – Appeal allowed with directions. [Paras 10 to 23]
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
These two Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 22.07.2019 in RP/1715/2019 and 19.06.2020 in RP/774/2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh and Tripura respectively (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission, Chandigarh and State Commission, Tripura), in First Appeal (FA) No. 98 of 2019 (RP/1715/2019) and First Appeal (FA) No. A.4 of 2020 (RP/774/2020) in which order dated 09.04.2019 (RP/1715/2019) and 16.01.2020 (RP/774/2020) of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh and Agartala respectively (hereinafter referred to as District Forum, Chandigarh and District Forum, Agartala) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 64 of 2019 (RP/1715/2019) and Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 34 of 2019 (RP/774/2020) were challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 22.07.2019 and 19.06.2020 respectively of the State Commission, Chandigarh and Tripura and order dated 09.04.2019 and 16.01.2020 respectively of the District Forum, Chandigarh and Agartal.
2. The Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant before the State Commission, Chandigarh and Tripura and Opposite Party before the District Forum, Chandigarh and Agartala and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant(s)) were Respondent(s) before the State Commission(s) and Complainant(s) before the District Forum(s).
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 06.09.2019 in RP/1715/2019 and on 07.09.2020 in RP/774/2020. Parties filed Written Arguments on 13.09.2023 (Petitioner) and 07.12.2023 (Respondent) in RP/1715/2019 and on 23.11.2023 (Petitioner) and 28.12.2020 (Respondent) in RP/774/2020. As the issues/legal points involved in both the cases are similar, they are taken up together. However, RP/1715/2019 is treated as the lead case and facts enumerated herein under are taken from RP/1715/2019.
4. Brief facts of the case (RP/1715/2019) as presented by the Complainant and, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:—
(i) On 05.02.2019, Complainant/Respondent purchased a pair of shoe from the Opposite Party/Petitioner’s Store in Chandigarh costing Rs.399/- and cashier issued a bill of Rs.402/- which was stated to be paid by the Complainant.
(ii) When Complainant checked the bill, he noticed that an amount of Rs.3/- was charged by the store for shopping bag (hereinafter also referred to as “carry bag”) that bears the logo of BATA on it.
(iii) It is alleged by the Complainant that charging for the carry bag is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, this complaint was filed.
5. Vide order dated 09.04.2019, in the CC/64/2019 of the District Commission, Chandigarh has passed the following order:—
“7. In the light of above observations, we are of the view that the present complaint of the complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party and the same is allowed qua it. The Opposite Party is directed:—
(i) To provide free carry bags to all customers forthwith who purchase articles from its Shop and stop unfair trade practice i.e. to charge for carry bag;
(ii) To refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.3/- wrongly charged for the paper carry bag;
(iii) To pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental and physical harassment;
(iv) To pay Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses;
(v) By way of punitive damages, to deposit Rs.5,000/- in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No. 32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh.”
6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 09.04.2019 of District Commission, Chandigarh Petitioner(s) appealed in State Commission, Chandigarh and the State Com
(1) Carry bag – If the Opposite Party claims itself to be responsible and environmentally conscious, then they should have given the carry bags to the customers free of cost because in the considered....
The definition of 'consumer' encompasses individuals using goods for self-employment, not solely for resale, as per the Consumer Protection Act.
1) Considered view that the Complaint filed u/s 12(1)(c) by the Complainant as Joint Complaint on behalf of similar situated Consumers not maintainable.2) Amply clear that punitive damages u/s 14(1)(....
(1) Commercial purpose – To determine whether goods purchased by a person (which would include a legal entity like a company) were for a commercial purpose or not, within definition of a “consumer” a....
Punitive damages cannot be treated as part of compensation for determining pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act.
Cause of action if a continuous one in nature, complaint cannot be barred on ground of limitation.”
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
