Store charging for carry bag is unfair

Future Retail, a company that runs chain stores under the brand name Big Bazaar, filed 14 revision petitions before the National Commission against the order of the Chandigarh State Commission holding it liable for charging its customers for carry bags.

These customers had filed individual complaints against Big Bazaar accusing it of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for levying an extra charge for providing carry bags for items purchased from its outlets. The retail chain contested, contending there was nothing wrong in doing so. The District Forum passed identical orders in each case, ordering Big Bazaar to refund the amount charged for the bag, along with compensation of ~100, litigation cost of ~1,100, and ~5,000 to Consumer Legal Aid Account. One month was given for compliance. Any delay would attract a 9 per cent interest.

Big Bazaar challenged the order before the Chandigarh State Commission, which upheld it and dismissed the appeal. The matter was then carried in revision to the National Commission.

The National Commission observed that it was an admitted and undisputed fact that an additional amount was being charged for each carry bag. The question was whether this charge was legally permissible.

Taking Ashok Kumar's case as the lead case, the Commission noted that ~18 had been charged for the carry bag. Big Bazar defended itself by arguing that a customer could bring his own carry bag. The store also stated it had prominently put up boards in its stores which displayed the rates and photographs of carry bags. It contended there was neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice as these bags were provided on a noprofit-no-loss basis.

The National Commission noted that the store was making contradictory statements by stating a customer could bring his own carry bag, and then stating that environment-friendly bags had to be purchased on a no-profit-no-loss basis. It said it was common knowledge that several big stores, including Big Bazaar, do not permit customers to bring their own carry bags, and instead compel them to purchase carry bags from them. The Commission considered this restriction as a misuse of the store's dominant position. The Commission pointed out there is no legal provision that allows a store to compel its customers to buy carry bags. It held that creating a situation that leaves the customer with no option but to buy the carry bag constitutes an unfair trade practice.

Big Bazaar argued its policy of providing environment-friendly carry bags should be considered beneficial to society. The Commission disagreed, observing that the profit margin would be adequate to cover the cost of providing an environmentfriendly carry bag free of charge. Yet this was not done. The store had instead resorted to making customers pay for carry bags of undisclosed specification. The Commission held that the shop had a duty to hand over the goods in a deliverable state, meaning these must be packed in such a way that a customer could carry them out of the store. So, it held the store liable for providing carry bags without imposing additional cost on the consumer.

The Commission concluded that Big Bazaar had committed a breach of consumer rights. It also observed that the store had derived considerable monetary gain by resorting to an unfair trade practice. Accordingly, by its order of December 22, 2020, passed by Dinesh Singh, the National Commission dismissed the revision petitions and upheld the decision in consumers’ favour.

Shops can’t forbid customers to bring in their own bags and then charge them for carry bags