Charging consumers for carry bags is an unfair trade practice because the seller is legally obligated to deliver goods in a deliverable state, which includes the cost of packing and carry bags.

PER SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Vide this common order, we are deciding above captioned appeals, arising out of different orders of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh whereby respective consumer complaints filed by the complainants therein (respondents before us) have been partly allowed, directing the opposite parties therein – Reliance Retail Limited (appellant herein) to refund the amount charged for carry bag besides granting compensation for harassment and mental agony.

2. It is pertinent to observe that this Commission is not oblivious of the fact that on earlier occasions as well, the appellants have preferred multiple appeals on analogous grounds assailing the orders passed by the District Commission, all of which came to be dismissed upon due consideration. The recurring nature of such litigation, raising substantially identical questions, reflects a settled position consistently upheld by this Commission.

3. The Counsel for the appellants has, however, sought to derive sustenance from the proceedings in the matter titled Reliance Retail Limited versus Dharam Pal & Anr., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.18376/2021 along with connected Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 11341/2022, 6075/2022 and 21701/2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, and remanded the matters back to the Hon’ble National Commission for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and in compliance with the directions issued therein. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while remanding the matters, granted liberty to the Hon’ble National Commission to reframe the substantial questions of law or to formulate fresh substantial questions of law, as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and thereafter to dispose of the appeals in accordance with law.

4. Be that as it may, it is equally significant to note that as per the information presently available from the e-Jagriti portal, the aforesaid remanded matters are still subjudice before the Hon’ble National Commission and are presently listed for hearing on 19.05.2026. The mere pendency of the said proceedings, without any conclusive adjudication or authoritative pronouncement on the issues involved, cannot be construed as a binding precedent nor does it operate as a legal embargo upon this Commission to proceed with and adjudicate the present appeals. In this backdrop, it would be neither judicious nor in consonance with the principles of expeditious justice to indefinitely defer the adjudication of the present appeals merely on account of the pendency of similar matters before a superior forum. More so, when the appeals at hand pertain to an earlier vintage, any unwarranted adjournment or keeping the matters in abeyance would defeat the very object of the consumer protection mechanism, which mandates timely and efficacious redressal of consumer grievances. Accordingly, this Commission is of the considered view that the present appeals, being older in point of time, cannot be kept in abeyance awaiting the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble National Commission and deserve to be adjudicated on their own merits in accordance with the prevailing legal position.

5. On merits of the case, the star argument of the Counsel for the appellant is that on