THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI PRESIDENT BEFORE : Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH F.A.NO.971/2025 (Against order in CC.NO.126/2024 on the file of the DCDRC, Krishnagiri)

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026

1. The Store Manager Decathlon Sports India Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Digital Mall No.229/1, 5 Junction Road Meyyanur, Block No.5, Meyyanur Village, Salem-636 004

2. The Authorised Signatory Decathlon Sports India Pvt. Ltd., Having Registered Office at:

Survey No.78/10 A20, Chikkajala Village M/s. K. Gowtham Kumar

27 Bellary Road Counsel for Bangalore – 562 157 Appellants /Opposite parties Vs.

R. Gowtham Raj S/o. Rathinavel No.732-1, MIG-630

3^rd Cross, TNHB Phase II Served and called absent Kirshnagiri- 635 002 Respondent/ Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission has partly allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.18.9.2024 in CC.No.126/2024.

This appeal is coming before me for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for Appellant, and upon perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

ORDER

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH , PRESIDENT (Open court)

1. The opposite parties before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant had purchased certain products from the opposite parties store on 16.3.2024 amounting to Rs.6,201/- which includes the charges of Rs.13/- for Paper bag, which contains the Tag line as “One Planet to Play one Bag to Buy 60+ Sports 600+ products”, on each side of the bag alongwith a Mobile application QR Code on bothside of the bag. The consumers have to shell out extra amount for the paper bag, from their pocket, is not only unfair trade practice, but also undue profiteering as an effort to benefit financially at the expense of the common man. Thereby it is clear that the opposite parties is using the consumer as an advertisement agent in a more convenient way to sell their products. Therefore, by alleging unfair trade practice against the opposite parties, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to return Rs.13/- paid by the complainant for Multipurpose Paper Large Bag and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-

towards compensation for mental agony, alongwith cost of Rs.50,000/-

3. The Appellants/opposite parties, had remained absent before the District Commission. Hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and had directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to return the amount of Rs.13/- paid by the complainant for Multipurpose Paper Large Bag or any bag with their company’s mobile application QR code on it and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony alongwith cost of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved over the order impugned, the opposite parties have filed the present appeal, praying to set aside the order passed, and remand back the matter for fresh disposal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties had submitted before this commission that the QR code present on the bag is an element of product design and functionality, and not an advertising tool. The principles laid down in cases relating to the illegality of charging for carry bags bearing store logos or promotional material do not apply to the present case. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. The non-appearance, and non-filing of version before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton. If an opportunity is provi