##PAGE1##

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SOUTH DELHI

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. DC/83/CC/151/2023

MS PRITI AGARWAL

PRESENT ADDRESS - E-5, 3rd FLOOR, GURU NANAK ROAD, ADARSH NAGAR DELHI

110033SOUTH,DELHI.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus

BATA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

PRESENT ADDRESS - 27B, CARMAC STREET 1st FLOOR, KOLKATA WEST BENGAL

700016SOUTH,DELHI.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

MONIKA A. SRIVASTAVA , PRESIDENT

KIRAN KAUSHAL , MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

NEMO

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

NEMO

DATED: 26/05/2026

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.151/2023

Ms. Priti Agarwal

D/o Shri S.L,. Agarwal

R/o E-5, 3^rd Floor

Guru Nanak Road

Adarsh Nagar

Delhi-110033.

Also At:

Chamber No.256

Lasyers’ Block

Saket Courts Complex

New Delhi-110017. .…Complainant

VERSUS

Bata India Private Limited

Having its registered Office at:

27B, Carmac Street

1^st Floor

Kolkata, West Bengal. ….Opposite Party

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Present: Adv. Priti Agarwal for the complainant

Adv. P.C. Arya for OP.

ORDER

Date of Institution:23.05.2023

Date of Order : 26.05.2026

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1. Briefly put Complainant purchased pair of shoes from Bata India Pvtfor Rs.1,499/- on

09.05.2023.

2. It is stated that at the time of making the payment the complainant was asked to pay an

extra amount of Rs.6/- for the paper carry bag.Complainant objected for the same and asked the

cashier as to why OP was charging an extra amount for the carry bag when it has been prohibited

by law. Thecashier informed her that the carry bag was rightly charged as it does not come for

free. Complainant further asked the cashier the logic behind charging for the carry bags as she

could not have been expected to carry the shoes in her hands .It is stated that the representative

of OP was rude and mocked her in front of everyone hence, the complainant had no option but to

pay an extra amount of Rs. 6/- for the carry bag.

3. It is stated that the complainant felt that she was wrongly charged for the paper carry bag

and OP was indulging in unfair trade practice by doing so. It is stated that the stores/shops cannot

charge consumers any additional charge for the bag , if the product is purchased from the same

store.

4. It is further stated that of late consumers were charged for carry bags which range from Rs.3/-

to Rs.15/- and even higher in some cases. This practice of charging customers for carry bags is

relatively new as until few years ago many brands accounted for the cost of the carry bag as

overhead expenses and provided them free of cost.

5. It is further stated that post 2011 the M/o Environmental Forests issued the plastic waste

(management and handling) rules which states that, ‘No (plastic) carry bags shall be made

available free of cost by retailers to consumers’. The real intention behind this move was to

discourage the consumer from using plastic bags as plastic is non-biodegradable hence a threat to

the environment. The above set rules were amended by notification dated 18.03.2018 and Rule 15

of Plastic Waste Management and Handling Rules 2016 was admitted with subsequent notification

dated 27.03.2018 .

6. It is further stated that making the carry bag available to the buyers has now become a

commercial exercise. Retailers such as OP began switching to more expensive paper and cloth

carry bags with a view to increase their profits by charging the same at exorbitant price at the

expense of unsuspecting consumers. They validate their carry bag charging policy by

differentiating between paper or jute and polythene carry bags and also misrepresenting size of

the carry bags. It is stated that giving the carry bag for free to the consumer for carrying the goods

purchased from the same store forms an intrinsic part of the customer satisfaction criterion under

the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

7. Complainant to support her case has relied on -Quick Bazar Vs Ashok Kumar