1.         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 Commission vide order dated 22.07.2019 in FA/98/2019 dismissed the appeals being devoid of any merit.

7.         In RP/1715/2019, Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 22.07.2019 of the State Commission, Chandigarh in FA/98/2019 mainly on following grounds:

1. The State Commission erred in rejecting the argument of the Revisionist that the sale of paper bag was optional at the discretion of the customer and erroneously concluded that as the copy of the notice was not placed before the District Forum, such argument was baseless.

2. The State Commission failed to consider the invoices placed on record as Annexure G, which proved that the statement “Purchase of carry Bag is optional and not necessary/mandatory’ was being printed prominently on the invoice itself at least since 1^st March, 2019 and thus at least on the date when the charging of an amount for providing carry bag was declared as “unfair Trade Practice” the same was being mentioned on the invoice itself which was a contract between the parties.

3. The State Commission erred in holding that the customer had the option of purchasing the bag or not was flimsy and that the Revisionist was under a duty to provide the paper carry bag free of cost to every consumer who buys any goods from its store. Such an observation does not have any statutory or any support of law.  

4. The State Commission failed to appreciate or deal with the averments and arguments of the Revisionist that there is no law or regulation in force in India or even in any other country of the world which mandates that a manufacturer or a retailer in addition to the primary packing of the product is under an obligation to provide a bag for carrying the article by the consumer from the shop till his car or his home.   

8.         Brief facts of the case in RP/774/2020 are:

(i)        On 17.04.2019, Respondent purchased two pair of shoes of an amount of Rs.499/- and Rs.299/- respectively. Further, Respondent claimed he was charged Rs.3/- towards the paper carry bag and issued a demand notice on the very next day wherein it was mentioned that “the salesman in the showroom was not in position to provide me a bag for carrying the items and compelled me to pay an additional amount of Rs.3/- for a paper bag”

(ii)       Respondent claimed that no MRP was mentioned on the bag and “due to absence of the MRP, it is evident that your showroom authority has adopted “unfair trade practice and charging unaware consumers arbitrarily and must have duped thousands on the garb of pushing sale of your very own paper bags in violation of Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Product & Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2006 as well as Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.

(iii)     This was not the case of Respondent that the notice with regard to nominal charge of Rs.3/- was not displayed on cash counter or in the Showroom or that the same was not mentioned on the Invoice. However the Respondent relied upon the order dated 09.04.2019 of District Forum, Chandigarh, which appears to be the basis of the Respondent’s voluntary purchase of carry bag on 17.04.2019 and a demand of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on the very next day i.e. 18.04.2019 allegedly on account of purchase of a carry bag for Rs.3/-. Hence, this complaint was filed.

9.         Vide order dated 16.01.2020, in the CC/34/2019 of the District Commission, Agartala has passed the following order –

“In the result, we direct the O.Ps. jointly and severally to refund Rs.3/- to the Complainant and pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practices adopted by them and also Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. The Complainant is thus entitled to get in total Rs.8,003/- (Rs.3 + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.3,000/-) from the O.Ps. The payment is to be made within 2 months from the date of judgement, if not, it will carry interest @9% P.A. till the payment is made in full.”

10.       Appeal filed by the Petitioner before State Commission, Tripura was dismissed vide order dated 19.06.2020 in FA/A.4/2020.

11.       In RP/774/2020, Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 19.06.2020 of the State Commission, Tripura in FA/A.4/2020 mainly on following grounds:

(i)        The State Commission erred in rejecting the appeal of the Appellant and failed to appreciate that the District Forum had not returned any finding of fact on the issue that whether the Respondent was compelled to purchase the Carry bag or he had voluntarily purchased the same despite adequate notices in the showroom and declaration on the invoice itself.

(ii)       The Appellant and every other manufacturer of a product has an inherent right to display its trademarks/brand upon the products itself, the primary packaging and any other material i.e. manufactured and sold by such retailer/manufacturer including the secondary packaging(s).

(iii)     The State Commission failed to even consider the arguments of the Appellant on the larger issue of the practice of partial charging towards the cost of carry bags to help save paper and environment and upon the consent of the customer.

(iv)      The State Commission failed to appreciate that the DF’s order is a regressive step and is against the global trend towards the protection of environment which is regularly endorsed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Green Tribunal.

12.       Heard learned counsels of both sides in RP/1715/2019 and learned counsel for Petitioner in RP/774/2020. In this case, Respondent was absent, despite service, hence was proceeded ex-parte. However, brief of written arguments filed by Respondent in this case has been taken into account. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

            12.1    In addition to the averments made under the grounds (Para 7 & 11), the petitioner contended that the Complainant/Respondent falsely alleged that he did not agree to purchase the shopping bag. It was further falsely alleged by the Complainant/Respondent that nowhere in the entire shop it was mentioned that the revisionist charges for the shopping bag whereas the Revisionist duly displays a written notice in all its stores to the effect that “the purchase of carry bags is optional and not necessary/mandatory” and sales representative always give an option to the customer before issuing the bill that the bag is chargable @Rs. 3/- per bag.

            12.2    Further, Petitioner contended that there is no law in India which mandates a retailer to provide for carry bags free of cost. The restriction to print its trade mark infringes Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. As a responsible corporate, Petitioner is merely discouraging the use of carry bags in any form to save the environment by saving unnecessary consumption of paper and water used for manufacturing such paper bags which has a severe effect on environment in recycling and disposal of waste paper and has adverse effect on tree and water consumption.

            12.3    On the other hand Respondent in RP/1715/2019 contended that the bag was being used as advertisement by Petitioner as on the carry bag, it was printed as “Bata Surprisingly Stylish” “Barcelona Milan Singapore New Delhi Rome”. Thus, at the cost of consumer, he was being used as the advertisement agent of the Bata India Limited. Firstly charging for a paper bag and secondly, putting its logo i.e. “Bata Surprisingly Stylish” on the same is a clear-cut unfair trade practice on the part of the Petitioner.

            12.4    Respondent in RP/774/2020 in its brief of written arguments has contended that without taking consent from the respondent, the Petitioner adopted unfair trade practices compelling the Respondent to buy the paper bag having logo of Bata India Ltd. and by this the Petitioner gets advertisement of business at the cost of Respondent.

13.       Main issues for consideration in the present case are:

              (a)       Whether the customers like the complainant in the present case buying a product from the seller like the petitioner in the present case has a right to get a carry bag free of cost from seller.

              (b)       Whether the seller can thrust the sale of carry bag on the customer at a price fixed by it.

            (c)       Whether in the present case, the customer/complainant was informed through Notice Board on the shop or by the sales person that the purchase of carry bag is optional.

14.       It is the case of the Petitioner that purchase of carry bag was optional, not necessary/mandatory, all the stores of Petitioner displayed a written notice to this effect, since 01.03.2019, aforesaid declaration/statement is printed on the sale invoices itself, in the present case, the Complainant/Respondent has falsely alleged that he did not agree to purchase the bag and that nowhere in the entire shop it was mentioned that Petitioner charges for the shopping bag. Petitioner further contends that Complainant/Respondent opted for a carry bag upon being asked by the Sales representative and the charge of Rs.3/- was made with the consent of Complainant/Respondent. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that it highly subsidized the price of the paper bag, which costs about Rs.6/- to the Petitioner. The Petitioner also submits that the goods of the Petitioner are already packed in their primary packaging on which the Petitioner complies with all relevant Regulations, contending further that there is no law in India which mandates a retailer to provide for carry bags free of cost. Further, the restrictions to print its trade mark infringes Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The order requiring the giving of paper bags mandatorily is regressive in nature.

15.       Complainant/Respondent on the other hand contends that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the para below. The carry bag, for which the Complainant was charged, carried name/advertisement of the Petitioner, hence it was an unfair trade practice on the part of Petitioner as at the cost of the Complainant, he was being used as advertisement agent of the Petitioner. There are concurrent findings of fact of both the para below that Complainant was never given the option to purchase the bag in question. No affidavit of the sales person has been filed by the Petitioner before the fora below to establish its contention that sales person of Petitioner herein intimated the Complainant that purchase of the carry bag is optional at the sole discretion of the customer and that notice was displayed. The Complainant/Respondent has relied upon order of this Commission dated 22.12.2020 in RP No. 975 to 988 of 2020.

16.       In addition to its contentions in RP/1715/2019, and in RP/774/2020, the Petitioner contended that the invoice of purchase admittedly contained a clear declaration that ‘Purchase of carry bag is optional and not necessary/mandatory”. The District Forum allowed the complaint vide order dated 16.01.2019, extensively relying on earlier order passed in Chandigarh case despite noticing that the same was not final and was sub-judice before that Hon’ble Commission. The Complainant/Respondent opted for a carry bag upon being asked by the sales representative and the charge was with the consent of the Complainant/Respondent.

17.       The contentions of Complainant/Respondent in this case, as stated in their brief of written arguments are reproduced below:

“2.       Points of Law on behalf of the respondent:

a. In this case the respondent is concerned with the scope and extent of the beneficial consumer jurisdiction under Section 2(c) of the CP Act, 1986, "Complaint" is defined to mean allegation in writing made by a complainant that the service provider has charged for the service, a price in excess of the price fixed or without price fixing under the law for the time being in force. Under section 2(d) "consumer" is defined to mean any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised. Under Section 2(g) of the CP Act, 1986, the word "deficiency" is defined to mean any fault imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The word "goods" is defined under Section 2(i) to mean goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. "Service" also defined under Section 2(o) of the CP Act, 1986. Therefore, Bata India Ltd. falls under this Act.

b. As per Section 2(1)(r)(x) and (5) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or deceptive practice including any of the following practices namely, the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which gives false or misleading facts disparaging the goods, service or trade to another person; permits the hoarding or destruction of goods or refuse to sell the goods or to make them available for sale or to provide any service, if such hoarding or destruction or refusal raises the cost of those or other similar goods or service." In the instant case, without taking consent from the respondent, the petitioner adopted unfair trade practices compelling the respondent to buy the paper bag having logo of Bata India Ltd and by this the petitioner gets advertisement of business at the cost of respondent.

c. That, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as because the order of District Forum has been upheld by the state commission.”

18.       In RP/1715/2019, the District Forum, while allowing the complaint, observed as follows:

“4.       Per pleading of the parties, the complainant has purchased pair of shoes from the Opposite Party on 05.02.2019 and its cost was Rs.399/-. However, per Annexure C-1, in addition to it, the complainant was also compelled to purchase paper bag worth Rs.3/- to carry the pair of shoes to his home. While the affidavit furnished is complainant never intended to purchase carry bag and it was to be provided by seller i.e. Opposite Party. It was an essential item for sale of product.

5.         We had also a glance to the carry bag which is annexed with the consumer complaint in which advertisement of Bata Company was being published as it has been printed in red words "Bata Surprisingly Stylish" which shows that Bata Company is stylish in nature and used the consumer as if he is the advertisement agent of Opposite Party. The purchase of the item alongwith sale of carry bag is not disputed as per statement put forth by Opposite Party.

6.         Per this evidence brought on record, we record a firm finding that there is unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party in compelling the complainant to purchase the carry bag worth Rs.3/- and if the Opposite Party is a environmental activist, he should have given the same to the complainant free of cost. It was for gain of OP. By employing unfair trade practice, OP is minting lot of money from all customers.

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:-

1. 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:
2. To refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.3/-wrongly charged for the paper carry bag:
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental and physical harassment;
4. To pay Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses;
5. 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.

19.       State Commission, while dismissing the appeal filed by Petitioner herein, observed as follows:

 “4.      The next argument raised by the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party was that the sale of paper carry bag is optional purely at the discretion of the consumer and further there is no prohibition on the appellant/opposite party to charge for the carry bag. To support his argument, he referred to a document (Annexure-F), which is a photocopy of one of such notice saying that ‘purchase of carry bags is optional and not necessary/mandatory'.

5.         Qua aforesaid contentions, it may be stated here that similar contentions were raised before this Commission in the case of Westside, a unit of Trent Limited Vs. Sapna Vasudev, Appeal No. 36 of 2019 decided on 08.04.2019, wherein this Commission held in Paras 12 & 13 as under:-

"12.     Counsel for the appellant/opposite party vehemently argued that the purchase of bag is entirely optional and is a voluntary act by a consumer and further the customers cannot bring their own carry bags or bags containing items/goods purchased from other shops. It may be stated here that the argument raised is totally absurd and vague and against the interest of consumers. On one hand, purchase of carry bags is made optional & voluntary and on the other hand, the consumer/customer is not allowed to enter the shop with empty carry bag or carry bag containing some goods purchased from other shop premises. By adopting above practice, the appellant/opposite party left the respondent/complainant with no other option with her but to buy the carry bag alongwith the goods purchased, to carry such goods from the shop-premises. By not allowing the customers to bring in the shop premises their own carry bags and thrusting its own carry bags against consideration, the appellant/opposite party is deficient in providing due service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. One cannot be expected to take the goods/garments purchased in hands. We are shocked to see the kind of services provided by these big Malls or Showrooms. On one side huge discounts are given ranging up-to 70% on the products by these shops/showrooms etc. and on the other hand, they are charging for a carry bag and could not give it free of cost to its worthy consumers."

13.       The next argument of Counsel for the appellant/opposite party that there is no prohibition on the appellant/opposite party to charge for the carry bag is also not sustainable in the eyes of law and observations given by us in the earlier part of the judgment. As already held, charging for a carry bag is against the interest of the consumers and particularly in view of argument raised by the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party that purchase of bag is entirely optional and a voluntary act and further the customers cannot bring their own carry bags or bags containing items/goods purchased from other shops, which we have already rejected in the preceding paragraph."

6.         Elaborating his argument to contradict the afore-extracted observations made by this Commission, Counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted that in case, the respondent/ complainant was not willing to buy the carry bag, he could bring his own carry bag. To say so, reliance was placed on document (Annexure-F). It may be stated here that the argument raised totally baseless as the aforesaid document was never placed in evidence before the Forum during the pendency of the complaint. Not only this, the appellant/opposite party has miserably failed to prove on record that the said notice saying that the carry bags are optional, was there in the premises of the appellant/opposite party on the relevant date and time when the respondent/complainant purchased the shoes from it. Had such like notices been there, still the appellant/opposite party, was expected to and in future also, supply a paper carry bag free of cost. By relying upon such like document and raising such a flimsy ground, the appellant/opposite party cannot run away from its duty to supply a paper carry bag free of cost to a consumer who buys goods from it against consideration paid. The respondent/complainant cannot be expected to take the shoes in hand without a carry bag from the billing counter up to his or her destination or vehicle. Thus, reliance placed on document (Annexure-F) is an afterthought as no credence can be given to it. It is purely and simply an attempt on the part of the appellant/opposite party to cover up the lacunas. Consumerism should prevail and such kind of practice of charging for paper carry bags should be stopped immediately, which have to be supplied free of cost to the consumers.

7.         We may also state here that firstly charging for a paper bag and secondly, putting its logo i.e. "Bata Surprisingly Stylish" on the same is a clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant/opposite party. In our recent judgment in the case of Westside, a unit of Trent Limited Vs. Sapna Vasudev, referred to above, this Commission has already held the act of charging for a paper bag and putting Company's Logo on it, to be an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the seller. Relevant Paras 10 to 11 of the judgment reads thus:-

"10.     However, on merits of the case, it may be stated here similar controversy qua charging for paper bags came before this Commission in the case of "M/s. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Chandgothia & Anr.’, Appeal bearing No.24 of 2019 decided on 18.03.2019, wherein this Commission held in Paras 11 to 15, inter-alia. as under:-

"11.     So far as reliance placed by the appellant/opposite party on Rule 10 of The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 and Rule 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016, published vide notification dated 18.03.2016, issued by Ministry of Environments and Forests is concerned, we would like to first extract the aforesaid Rule hereunder:-

“10.    Explicit pricing of carry bags.-No carry bag shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers. The concerned municipal authority may by notification determine the minimum price for carry bags depending upon their quality and size which covers their material and waste management cost in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation."

"15. Explicit pricing of carry bags.-(1) The shopkeepers and street vendors willing to provide plastic carry bags for dispensing any commodity shall register with local body. The local body shall, within a period of six months from the date of final publication of these rules in the Official Gazettee of India notification of these rules, by notification or an order under their appropriate state statute or byelaws shall make provisions for such registration on payment of plastic waste management fee of minimum rupees forty eight thousand @rupees for thousand per month. The concerned local body may prescribe higher plastic waste management fee, depending upon the sale capacity. The registered shop keepers shall display at prominent place that plastic carry bags are given on payment."

12.       It may be stated here that no doubt, as per Rule 10 of The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, no carry bags were to be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers but thereafter, in the year 2016, the aforesaid Rules were amended vide notification dated 18.03.2016 to be read as Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016. It is important to mention here that the aforesaid Rule 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016 was omitted vide subsequent Notification dated 27.03.2018 and as such, the appellant/opposite party cannot take shelter of the said rule. Since the mandate for retailers to charge for plastic carry bags has been omitted in March 2018, therefore, its contention that it could charge for paper carry bags is totally against law and has no legs to stand.

13.       With all concern, we must say that charging for paper carry bags is totally against consumerism. First of all, it is nowhere the plea of the appellant/opposite party that it has displayed in the shop premises or at the entry gate that the customers can bring their own carry bags to carry the goods purchased from the appellant/opposite party. We have seen that in these days, it is general practice prevalent in the market that if a person who goes to the shop premises like the appellant/opposite party to buy some goods, he/she is not allowed to enter the said shop premises with any carry bag. The same are kept at the entry door by the security person standing at the door. In case, the security person standing at the entry allows to do so, he staples the same so that no other product is put in the said carry bag. A person who buys some articles/products from the shop premises like the appellant/opposite party is expected to be provided with free carry bag to carry those articles up to his car of destination or he/she should be allowed to bring his/her own carry bag inside the shop premises. Not only this, the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party failed to show any provision of law/rules/regulations, which gives such an authority to the appellant/opposite party, not to allow the customers to bring their own carry bags inside the shop premises of the appellant/opposite party.

14.       Further, the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party conceded that it is nowhere displayed in the shop premises of the appellant/opposite parties, either at the entry gate or in the shop premises, that the customers can carry the goods purchased from the appellant/opposite party in their own carry bags or they are allowed to bring their own carry bags inside the showroom. However, the argument raised by Counsel for the appellant/opposite party was that one should adopt the practice of taking articles without bag out of the shop so that even paper bags can be saved. We are surprised to hear such kind of argument

15.       Not only above, the carry bags, which are sold by the appellant/opposite party bear its logo on both sides and the customer who is buying the same is in fact publicizing the brand of the appellant/opposite party and thereby becomes a brand ambassador. On the other hand, charging for the said paper carry bag by the appellant/opposite party amounted to unfair trade practice........”

11.       In the instant case also, it has not been disputed by the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party that the appellant/ opposite party is providing paper carry bags to its customers on payment of additional price. At the time of arguments, he also conceded to the argument raised by the Counsel for the respondent/complainant that it was nowhere mentioned in the entire Shop premises of the appellant/opposite party that it would be charging for a carry bag. As rightly held by the Forum in its order, the appellant/Opposite Party 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.

8.         In our opinion, the Forum has also rightly held in Paras 5 and 6 of its order as under:-

"5.       We had also a glance to the carry bag which is annexed with the consumer complaint in which advertisement of Bata Company was being published as it has been printed in red words "Bata Surprisingly Stylish" which shows that Bata Company is stylish in nature and used the consumer as if he is the advertisement agent of Opposite Party. The purchase of the item alongwith sale of carry bag is not disputed as per statement put forth by Opposite Party.

6.         Per this evidence brought on record, we record a firm finding that there is unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party in compelling the complainant to purchase the carry bag worth Rs.3/- and if the Opposite Party is a environmental activist, he should have given the same to the complainant free of cost. It was for gain of OP. By employing unfair trade practice, OP is minting lot of money from all customers."

9.         In view of above, in our considered opinion, the Forum rightly directed the appellant/opposite party 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. It also rightly ordered refund of an amount of Rs.3/- wrongly charged by the appellant/opposite party for the paper carry bag besides payment of Rs.3.000/- to the respondent/complainant towards compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.

10.       Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.”

20.       In RP/774/2020, District Forum, while allowing the complaint observed as follows:

 “4.      POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

(i) Whether there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice indulged in by the O.Ps towards the Complainant?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

5.         DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISIONS:-

We have heard arguments from both sides.

We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties, the evidence, both documentary and oral adduced by both sides.

We have also gone through the written arguments of the Complainant.

It is evident from the case record that the Complainant on 17/04/2019 purchased two pairs of shoes from the O.P. No.2 on payment of Rs.798/-(Rs.499/- & Rs.299/-). He was made to pay Rs.3/- for the paper bag in order to carry the shoes. The paper bag did not reflect MRP of Rs.3/- and that it got printed the logo of "Bata" and also a message "Bata Surprisingly Stylish Barcelona Milan Singapore New Delhi Rome". 

It was argued by the Complainant that by not printing the MRP of Rs.3/- on the paper bag which has been paid by him and the paper bag also having got printed the logo of "Bata" as well as the message "Bata Surprisingly Stylish Barcelona Milan Singapore New Delhi Rome" are instances of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. towards the Complainant. In support of his argument the Complainant has referred to a decision dated 09/04/2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1, U-T Chandigarh in case No.CC-64/2019. The Complainant prayed for allowing his complain and for payment of compensation for unfair trade practices indulged in by the O.Ps. towards him.

Per-contra Learned Advocate appearing for the O.Ps. contended that the Complainant was never forced to purchase the paper bag from the showroom of the O.P. No.2. The Complainant on his own volition purchased the paper bag in order to carry the shoes which have been purchased from the Showroom of the O.P. No.2. Learned Advocate further argued that the O.Ps. had no intention to utilize the paper bag as a medium of advertisement for promotion of sale of products of Bata. Regarding the judgment of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- 1, U-T Chandigarh in case No.CC-64/2019 referred to by the Complainant, Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. contended that the O.P. No.1 has already preferred revision against the said judgment before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide Revision Petition No. 1715/2019 and the Hon'ble National Commission has already passed orders lastly on 11/10/2019. Hence according to the Learned Advocate of the O.Ps. the Complainant can not reap any benefit from the said judgment. Learned Advocate further argued that out of Rs.3/- which was charged on paper bag, 0.23 paise each was deposited by the O.P. No.2 for CGST & SGST which fact was known to the Complainant. Hence non impleadment of the Central Government and the State Government by the Complainant is fatal for the case of the Complainant. Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

We find that O.Ps. did not deny the selling of the paper bag containing the logo of Bata as well as the message "Bata Surprisingly Stylish Barcelona Milan Singapore New Delhi Rome" to the complainant on a price of Rs.3/-. It is also evident from the paper bag under Exhibit-2 that it did not reflect MRP of Rs.3/- which amounts to unfair trade practices on the part of the O.Ps. According to us selling of paper bag containing the logo of Bata as well as the message mentioned above in consideration of Rs.3/- charged from the Complainant is also an instance of unfair trade practices adopted by the O.Ps. towards the Complainant, It is crystal clear that the O.Ps. by selling the paper bag with logo of Bata used it for promoting sales of Bata India Limited at the cost borne by the Complainant.

We have gone through the order dated 11/10/2019 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1715/2019 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has stayed operation of the impugned order passed by the District Forum-1, U-T Chandigarh, as affirmed in Appeal by the State Commission, in so far as it directs the Petitioner (the O.P. No.1) to provide free carry bags to the customers who purchase articles from its shops. Hence, the contentions of the Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. that the Complainant can not reap any benefit from the judgment passed by the District Forum-1, U-T Chandigarh does not appear to us acceptable as the Hon'ble National Commission did not stay the entire judgment. As regards deposit of 0.23 paise each for CGST & SGST by the O.Ps. against Rs.3/- charged against the paper bag can not be entertained as we find that the O.Ps. did not disclose this fact in their written objection. 

Based on the cogent evidence available on record we record our firm finding that there was unfair trade practices adopted by the O.Ps. towards the Complainant.

6.         In view of the discussion made above, we find and hold that the Complainant has succeeded in establishing his case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We find the O.Ps. guilty of committing unfair trade practices against the Complainant. The complainant is entitled to get compensation / relief.

Both the issue framed in this-case-are decided in favour of the Complainant and against the O.Ps.”

21.       In this case, State Commission while dismissing the appeal, observed as follows:

 “9.      Mr. Debnath, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants i.e, the opposite parties while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the impugned judgment is totally perverse and the learned District Forum failed to appreciate that the practice of charging of paper bags could not be declared as unfair trade practice as the same could by no stretch of imagination be said to be 'unfair trade practice' as defined under Section 2 (r) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it is not a forced purchase. Moreover, there are no hidden charges, concealment of facts, breach of trust or unfair practice adopted by the seller who declares the price of the carry bag upfront. To buy or not to buy is a consumer's decision after observing the MRP in the display board in the cash counter. He also submits that the carry bag was provided to the complainant after his consent and a tax invoice with GST on carry bag/bill for the same was also generated and duly given, the respondent had no locus standi to file and pursue the complaint before the learned District Forum as an afterthought. He again submits that the learned District Forum misconstrued the Section 4(1) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2006 though he has admitted that in the paper bag no price is mentioned and one logo of Bata is also used. He has again contended that the complainant has no grievance against the shoes purchased from the Bata and he also did not suffer any loss. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Motors (India) Private Limited Vs Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat & Anr (Civil Appeal Nos.8072 and 8073 of 2009) wherein the question arose as to whether in absence of any prayer made in the complaint and without evidence of any loss suffered, the award of punitive damages is permissible.

10.       Sri Nath Bhaumik, the complainant in person while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that his case is fully covered by the judgment of Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in Appeal No. 98 of 2019 wherein the Hon'ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh considered the case of Bata India Limited Vs Dinesh Prashad Raturi and allowed the complaint petition of the respondent-complainant, Dinesh Prashad Raturi upholding the judgment of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1, U.T. Chandigarh, wherein the learned District Forum directed the opposite party, Bata India Limited 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 and also directed to refund of an amount of Rs.3/- wrongly charged by the appellant-opposite party for the paper carry bag and also to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental and physical harassment as well as Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses. He has finally contended that the contention of Bata India Limited to the effect that every Bata Showroom provides display board in prominent place in the showroom in order to sensitize the customers not to indulge in purchase of paper bag for the sake of protecting the environment and that purchase of paper bag is not mandatory are not correct. According to him, Annexure-A series i.e. the posters relating to 'Carry Your Own Bag' was also not there in the showroom from where he purchased shoes and he was insisted to purchase paper carry bag.

11.       We have gone through the facts of Dinesh Prashad Raturi (supra), fact of which is same to the fact of the case at hand. Hon'ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh while upholding the judgment of the learned District Forum-1, U.T. Chandigarh also considered the similar argument raised by the Bata India Limited which will be evident from paragarh-4 of the judgment which reads as follows:-

“4.       The next argument raised by the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party was that the sale of paper carry bag is optional purely at the discretion of the consumer and further there is no prohibition on the appellant/opposite party to charge for the carry bag. To support his argument, he referred to a document (Annexure-F), which is a photocopy of one of such notice saying that 'purchase of carry bags is optional and not necessary/nandatory'." 

Annexure-F of Dinesh Prashad Raturi (supra) is similar to Annexure-A series of the case in hand. The Hon'ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in Para-7 of its judgment observed that firstly, charging for a paper bag and secondly, putting its logo i.e. "Bata Surprisingly Stylish" on the same is a clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant/opposite party. In the same judgment the Hon'ble Sate Commission, U.T. Chandigarh also considered the case of Westside, a unit of Trent Limited Vs, Sapna Vasudev 2019 (2) CLT 403 and ultimately held that the learned District Forum did not commit any wrong.

We have also gone through the impugned judgment wherein the learned District Forum in its findings discussed as under:-

"We find that O.Ps did not deny the selling of the paper bag containing the logo of Bata as well as the message "Bata Surprisingly Stylish Barcelona Milan Singapore New Delhi Rome" to the complainant on a price of Rs.3/. It is also evident from the paper bag under Exhibit-2 that it did not reflect MRP of Rs.3/- which amounts to unfair trade practices on the part of the O.Ps. According to us selling of paper bag containing the logo of Bata as well as the message mentioned above in consideration of Rs.3/- charged from the Complainant is also an instance of unfair trade practices adopted by the O.Ps towards the Complainant. It is crystal clear that the O.Ps by selling the paper bag with logo of Bata used it for promoting sales of Bata India Limited at the cost borne by the Complainant.

We have gone through the order dated 11/10/2019 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1715/2019 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has stayed operation of the impugned order passed by the District Foram-1, U-T Chandigarh, as affirmed in Appeal by the State Commission, in so far as it directs the Petitioner (the O.P. No.1) to provide free carry bags to the customers who purchase articles from its shops. Hence, the contentions of the Learned Advocate for the O.Ps that the Complainant cannot reap any benefit from the judgment passed by the District Forum-I, U-T Chandigarh does not appear to us acceptable as the Hon'ble National Commission did not stay the entire judgment. As regards deposit of 0.23 paise each for CGST & SGST by the O.Ps against Rs.3/- charged against the paper bag cannot be entertained as we find that the O.Ps did not disclose this fact in their written objection.

Based on the cogent evidence available on record we record our firm finding that there was unfair trade practices adopted by the O.Ps towards the Complainant."

We are in full agreement with the judgment of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in Dinesh Prashad Raturi (supra) as well as the findings of the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala though Mr. Debnath, Ld. Counsel has submitted that the judgment of Dinesh Prashad Raturi (supra) is now under consideration of the Hon'ble National Commission. According to us, mere filing a Revision Petition before the Hon'ble National Commission against the judgment in Dinesh Prashad Raturi (supra) does not itself help the appellants when they failed to place any stay order before this Conimission.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum considered all aspects of the case and rightly held that there was an unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties towards the complainant and passed the impugned judgment. Thus, we are of the view that the learned District Forum did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment. Hence, no interference is called for.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.”

22.       A similar issue came up for consideration before this Commission in RP No. 975-988 of 2020 and this Commission vide order dated 22.12.2020 dismissed the appeals filed by Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.). Extract of relevant paras of this order is reproduced below:

“Revision Petition No. 975 of 2020

4.         The Petitioner, Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) was the Opposite Party before the District Forum (the ‘Opposite Party Co.’).

The Respondent, Mr. Ashok Kumar, was the Complainant before the District Forum (the ‘Complainant’).

xxx

6.         The short point involved is that charging additional cost (Rs.18/- in this case) for carry bag(s), to carry the goods purchased by the Complainant, has been held by the two Fora below, the District Forum and the State Commission, to be deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party Co.

7.         The Complaint was instituted before the District Forum under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’).

The District Forum heard both sides, made its appraisal of the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 05.09.2019, determined deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party Co.

It ordered the Opposite Party Co. to refund the cost of the carry bag(s) and pay compensation of Rs.100/- and cost of litigation of Rs.1100/- to the Complainant and to deposit Rs.5000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum. The Order was to be complied with within one month, failing which the amounts awarded will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of the Order till realization/deposit.

The District Forum’s findings are summed-up in paras 6, 7 and 8 of its Order, which are reproduced below for ready appreciation:

6.         The factum of charging additional price for providing carry bags to its customers has not been disputed by the OP. The argument put forward by the OP is that the rates and photographs of the carry bags are displayed at various display boards in the store and the carry bags are sold on no profit no loss basis and the consumers are requested to carry their own bags and that a separate charge would be payable in case the consumer wished to obtain a new carry bag. However, we are not impressed with this argument of the OP because the big stores like the OP never allowed the customers to carry bags in their hands within their store premises knowing very well that if they are allowed then the customers will not easily give their consent for the purchase of the carry bags. The OP is, therefore, taking advantage of its dominating position.

7.         At any rate, 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.

8.         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 our 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.

8. The Opposite Party Co. appealed under Section 15 of the Act 1986 before the State Commission.

The State Commission (also) made its appraisal of the evidence, and, vide its impugned Order of 18.05.2020, dismissed the appeal.

The State Commission's findings are succinctly articulated in paras 14 and 15 of its Order, which are reproduced below for ready appreciation:

14.       It was also vehemently contended by Counsel for the appellant that the purchase of carry bag is entirely optional and is a voluntary act by a consumer. However, in the same breath, it was also contended by her that the customers cannot bring their own carry bags containing items/goods purchased from other shops.

It may be stated here that, once we have already held that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliberate state shall be suffered by the seller, as such, the contention raised does not merit acceptance. Ever otherwise, as per the contention raised by Counsel for the appellant, on the one hand, purchase of carry bags is made optional & voluntary but at the same time, the consumer/customer is not allowed to enter the shop with their own carry bags containing some goods purchased from other shop premises. We cannot expect that for every single item/article intended to be purchased by a customer, he/she needs to carry separate carry bags. For e.g. if a customer wants to purchase, say about 15 in number, daily-use goods/articles like macroni pep, Dettol, oreo; cop urad, soap, toothpaste, shaving cream, pen, pencil etc., from different shops, we cannot expect him/her to take 15 carry bags from home, for the same. Thus, by not allowing the customers to carry their own carry bags by the appellant in its premises, there was no option left with them to buy the carry bags alongwith the goods purchased, to carry the same from the shop-premises. We are shocked to note the kind of services provided by these big Malls/Showrooms. One cannot expected to take the goods like macroni pep, Dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., purchased, in hands. By not allowing the customers to bring in the shop premises, their own carry bags, and thrusting its own carry bags against consideration, the appellant is deficient in providing serive and also indulged into unfair trade practice. No case is made out to reverse the findings of the respective District Forum in each appeal.

15.       For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that all these appeals are devoid of merit and the same deserve dismissal. Consequently all the above captioned appeals are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The orders of the District Forum in each appeal are upheld.

9.         The Opposite Party Co. has filed the instant Revision Petition under Section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the 'Act 2019') [corresponding Section 21(b) of the Act 1986] before this Commission. [The jurisdiction of this Commission under both sections i.e. Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 and Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019 is the same (the articulation in both is identical).]

10.       It is well evident from the examination made by the two Fora below that earlier the Opposite Party Co. was providing carry bags made of polythene to its consumers without charging additional cost. Later it dispensed with polythene and substituted cloth in its stead and started charging additional cost for the cloth carry bags. Prominent prior notice/signs/announcement/advertisement/warning to the consumers, before the consumers exercised their choice to make their purchases from the outlets of the Opposite Party Co., that additional cost will be charged for carry bags, was not there. Consumers were under the impression that as per the earlier practice of the Opposite Party Co., and as per the normal practice in retail outlets in general, no additional cost would be charged for the carry bags. Consumers were not allowed/were not in a position to/did not have prior notice or information to take their own carry bags. After making their purchases, at the time of making the payment, additional cost for carry bags was imposed on the consumers.

Both the Fora below, having respectively appraised the case, weighed the evidence, have returned concurrent findings of deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party Co.

No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence is visible. No jurisdictional error, or miscarriage of justice, is visible.

The Award made by the District Forum, as upheld by the State Commission, appears just and equitable in the facts of the case.

On the face of it, nothing warrants interference with the Award in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

11.       The argument made by learned senior Counsel, in the hearing on admission on 01.12.2020, that in "similar" cases of other traders notice has been issued by co-ordinate benches of this Commission, is not tenable.

A revision petition merits issuance of notice if a prima facie case is made out on merit. If a revision petition is totally bereft of merit, no notice is required, it can (and albeit should) be dismissed on admission, with reasons recorded.

Mere issuance of notice by a co-ordinate bench in "similar" cases of other traders is not a binding precedent.

For a precedent to be binding, one, the issue in question has to be duly examined, and, two, the reasons for arriving at the conclusion arrived at have to be duly recorded. Without examination or reasons recorded on the issue in question, an order does not become a binding precedent; only if an issue is examined and decided with a reasoned order, it becomes a binding precedent. (And then, too, for further reasons recorded subsequently, the precedent could be reviewed or referred to a larger bench etc. as per the new facts and wiser counsel and as per the law.)

In the context of the doctrine of binding precedent, there is a material difference between interim/interlocutory Orders and final Orders/Judgments. The daily orders referred to by the learned senior Counsel are not final Orders/Judgements.

Another argument made that in a "similar" case of a trader relating to charging of additional cost for carry bags, the Competition Appellate Tribunal, vide its Order dated 07.07.2005, in Appeal No. 64 of 2015, Kamble Sayabanna Kallappa Vs. Lifestyle International Private Limited, dismissed the Appela preferred against the refusal of the Competition Commission of India to order  an investigation into the alleged anti-competitive conduct of the concerned trader, is also not tenable.

The Competition Commission of India/the Competition Appellate Tribunal and the Consumer Protection Fora function in different domains, with different aims and objects, that one independent of the other, the one under its own statute, The Competition Act, 2002, the other under its own, The Consumer Protection Act, 2019. A further argument made that the goods sold are properly packed, in conformity with the applicable Rules, is also not tenable.

The traders (the definition of "trader" includes 'packer') have necessarily to comply with the Rules re Packaging. The question here is not of "Packaging', which has necessarily to conform to the applicable Rules, but of whether or not additional cost can be imposed to provide carry bags at the time of making payment for the goods selected for purchase, without prior notice or information being given, before the consumer patronizes the retail outlet of the Opposite Party Co., and before the consumer made his selection for purchase.

A still further argument made that the Opposite Party Co. has since dispensed with polythene and is using eco-friendly cloth in its stead and that it provides the cloth bags on a no-profit basis, is also not tenable.

The question here is not of cloth bags being eco-friendly or not, or of the cloth bags being sold on no-profit basis or not, but, as already said, of whether or not additional cost can be imposed to provide carry bags at the time of making payment for the goods selected for purchase, without prior notice or information being given, before the consumer patronizes the retail outlets of the Opposite Party Co., and before the consumer made his selection for purchase.

The arguments made do not merit issuance of notice. If a prima facie case on merit is not made out, if the revision petition is totally devoid of merit, it requires to be dismissed, with reasons recorded.

12.       The Complainant has already proved his case in two Consumer Protection Fora. Here, a company, with wherewithal, is on the one side, and an ordinary common consumer, without wherewithal, is on the other side. Putting him to trouble in a third Forum (this Commission), when no case is made out on merit in the revision preferred before this Commission, would be inappropriate and albeit compromise the aims and objects of the statute.

As such, the request of learned senior Counsel to at the very least issue notice to the Complainant is politely declined.

13.       It is well evinced that earlier the Opposite Party Co. was providing carry bags made of polythene to its consumers without charging additional cost.

Later it dispensed with polythene and substituted cloth in its stead, and concomitantly started charging additional cost for the cloth carry bags.

Prominent (repeat prominent) prior (repeat prior) notice/signs/announcement/advertisement/warning to the consumers, before (repeat before) the consumers exercised their choice to make their purchases from the outlets of the Opposite Party Co., that additional cost will be charged, was not there.

Consumers were under the impression that as per the earlier practice of the Opposite Party Co., and as per the normal practice in retail outlets in general, no additional cost would be charged for the carry bags.

Consumers were not allowed / were not in a position to / did not have prior notice or information to take their own carry bags.

After making their purchases, at the time of making the payment, additional cost for carry bags was imposed on the consumers.

Carry bags of undisclosed specifications were forced on the consumers at price as fixed by the Opposite Party Co., the consumers were forced to accept the carry bags, of undisclosed specifications, at the price fixed.

The normal practice in retail outlets is to provide carry bags without additional cost, to enable convenience in carrying the purchased goods (this is different from 'Packaging' which in any case has necessarily to be compliant to the applicable Rules). In the case of the instant Opposite Party Co., the same normal was earlier in place i.e. carry bags (made of polythene) were provided without additional cost. On switching to carry bags made of cloth, the normal was changed, an additional cost was imposed.

The Consumer has the right to know, before he exercises his choice to patronize a particular retail outlet, and before he makes his selection of goods for purchase, that additional cost will be charged for carry bags, and also the right to know the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. Prominent prior notice and information has necessarily to be there (inter alia at the entrance to the retail outlet also), to enable the consumer to make his choice of whether or not to patronize the concerned outlet, and the consumer has necessarily to be informed of the additional cost for carry bags and of their salient specifications and price before he makes his selection of the goods for purchase.

It cannot be that a notice is displayed at the payment counter or that the consumer is informed at the time of making payment that additional cost will be charged for carry bags, after the consumer has already made his selection for purchase and has already made payment or is in the process of making payment for the selected goods. It also cannot be that carry bags of (undisclosed) specifications and of price as fixed by the Opposite Party Co. are so forced on the consumer. Such notice or information at the time of making payment not only causes embarrassment and harassment to the consumer and burdens him with additional cost but also affects his unfettered right to make an informed choice of patronizing or not patronizing a particular outlet at the initial stage itself and before making his selection of goods for purchase.

It may be noted that carry bags, sold at a particular price to the consumer, are in themselves 'goods', and, as such, are themselves, too, within the ambit of the statute for "better protection of the interests of consumers". It cannot be that the said goods (i.e. the carry bags) are imposed on the consumer, without disclosing their salient specifications, at the price fixed by the Opposite Party Co., without prior notice or information that (additional) cost will be charged for them.

The aberrations, in such facts and manner, arbitrarily and highhandedly, are unquestionably "unfair trade practice" under Section 2(1)(r) of the Act 1986 [corresponding Section 2(47) of the Act 2019].

Section 2(1)(r) of the Act says of "a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:- ".

The list provided in Section 2(1)(r) is illustrative and not comprehensive.

That is to say, an unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, as is judiciously determined, on facts and reasons, on fair and objective appraisal of the evidence and material on record, would qualify as 'unfair trade practice' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(r).

In the instant case, arbitrarily and highhandedly deviating from its past practice, deviating from the normal, not giving adequate prominent prior notice or information to the consumer before he makes his choice of patronizing the retail outlet, and before he makes his selection for purchase, imposing additional cost of carry bags at the time of making payment, after the selection has been made, forcing carry bags without disclosing their salient specifications at price as fixed by the Opposite Party Co., putting the consumer to embarrassment and harassment, burdening the consumer with additional cost, in such way and manner, is decidedly unfair and deceptive.

14.       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.

15.       The Opposite Party Co. through its Chief Executive is ordered under Section 39(1)(g) of the Act 2019 [corresponding Section 14(1)(f) of the Act 1986] to forthwith discontinue its unfair trade practice of arbitrarily and highhandedly imposing additional cost of carry bags on the consumer at the time of making payment, without prominent prior notice and information before the consumer makes his choice of patronizing its retail outlets and before the consumer makes his selection of goods for purchase, as also without disclosing the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. The necessary notice/signs/announcement/advertisement/ warning should be in the place and manner as may enable the consumer to make his informed choice of whether or not to patronize its retail outlets, and whether or not to make his selection of goods for purchase from its retail outlets. 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 Opposite Party Co. through its Chief Executive shall most immediately issue appropriate instructions to all its retail outlets accordingly.

A report-in-compliance shall be filed by the Opposite Party Co. through its Chief Executive with the District Forum within eight weeks of the pronouncement of this Order.

16.       There is no hesitation in dismissing the Opposite Party Co.'s case.

17.       The Opposite Party Co. through its Chief Executive shall ensure compliance of the Award made by the District Forum, as upheld and sustained by the State Commission, within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order.”

23.       After giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, and keeping in view the observations of this Commission in order dated 22.12.2020 in RP Nos. 975-988 of 2020, both the RPs are partly allowed with the following directions: -

23.1    Considering that carry bags are independent good in itself different from the goods/products sold by the sellers like the Petitioner in the present cases and in the absence of any law or rules or regulations in force, sellers like the Petitioner in the present cases, selling any of its goods/products in its primary packing(s) is/are under no obligation to provide a free carry bag(s) of any material/specification/size/description to its customers like the Respondent/Complainant in the present cases for carrying the goods/products bought from it. However, this is subject to observance of following conditions.

23.2    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.

23.3    Further, the carry bag(s) so sold by the Petitioner at a price fixed by it, cannot have its name or logo or any kind of advertisement or slogan in any form or that of any other seller(s)/party(ies), i.e. it should be a plain carry bag of any material/description/specification/size, without any name or slogan or advertisement or logo on it, either of the Petitioner or anybody else, otherwise, the Petitioner cannot charge for such carry bag(s) and same shall be supplied free of cost. However, these directions do not prohibit any seller like the Petitioner in the present case, to supply even plain carry bag(s) to its customer free of cost, if the seller/Petitioner so desires. Moreover, Petitioner cannot charge for the carry bag bearing its/anybody else’s name or logo or slogan or advertisement etc., even if it claims that it is only partially recovering the cost of such carry bag/selling such carry bag at a subsidized cost.

23.4    The Petitioner cannot/shall not put any restrictions on customers bringing empty carry bags of any material/specification/description/size etc. (unless prohibited by any local laws) inside the store(s)/showroom(s)/shop(s) for purposes of carrying the goods/products purchased from the Petitioner.

23.5    The Petitioner has to display multiple notices at prominent places in its store(s)/shop(s)/showroom(s), including the one at the entrance gate(s) itself and the one at the payment counter(s), stating that the cost of goods sold does not include cost of carry bags, carry bags if purchased shall be charged extra, purchase of carry bags is optional, not necessary/mandatory, the store(s)/showroom(s) permit their customers to bring their own empty carry bags of any material/specification/description/size to carry the goods purchased by them. Further, the Petitioner shall also put such notices on its website under suitable headings. It may be noted that putting such notices on the invoice is not sufficient as invoice represents completion of the sale transaction. Hence, the customer must have the notice before the purchase of the goods and/or the carry bag to carry such goods.

23.6    Further, as the carry bag(s) so sold by the Petitioner are themselves ‘goods’ under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, independently of the primary goods/products sold by the Petitioner, for whose carrying such a carry bag is sold, hence all the provisions of Consumer Protection Act shall apply to sale of such carry bag as well and sale of such carry bags must conform to all the local laws in this regard. Further, such plain carry bags shall have a MRP(s) marked on it (different MRP(s) can be marked on bags of different material/size/description/specification) and such MRP(s) should also be prominently displayed along with notices referred to above.

23.7    We make it clear that the customer can carry only empty carry bags inside such store(s)/showroom(s) and Petitioner will be free to put reasonable restrictions on customers taking carry bag(s) containing goods bought from elsewhere and/or customer’s own belonging(s) inside the store(s)/showroom(s), if they so wish. However, the Petitioner will be obligated to make arrangements, free of cost, outside the main entrance of its store(s)/showroom(s), where such customers can keep its carry bag(s) containing goods/products purchased from elsewhere and/or customer’s own belonging (like umbrella, babies food items etc.), which should be either manned by a person engaged by the Petitioner, who receives such bag(s) at entry gate and issue a numbered token and delivers back such bag(s) to the customers at the time of customer leaving the store(s)/showroom(s) or in the alternative provide a reasonable number of self-operatable and lockable lockers of reasonable sizes, free of cost, outside the store(s)/showroom(s) main entrance, where customers can keep such carry bag(s), containing goods brought from elsewhere/their own belongings. Further, Petitioner shall provide, free of cost, baskets/trollies, as considered necessary, to enable the customers to bring goods bought from their store(s)/showroom(s), from the sales counter(s) up to the entry gate point(s) where their carry bags containing goods purchased from elsewhere/ or their own belonging have been kept.

23.8    Copy of these orders shall be sent by the Registry to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Petitioner Company – M/s. Bata India Limited, as well as to their officers incharge at their Corporate and Registered offices, in addition to the stores incharges of the two stores and the Complainant(s)/Respondent(s) in the present two cases. Copies of these orders will also be sent by the Registry to the State Commission, Chandigarh, State Commission Tripura and all other State Commissions through their Registrar for information.

23.9    Above stated directions shall be complied with by the Petitioner Company within a maximum of 45 days period from the date of this order and a comprehensive pointwise compliance report, on affidavit, shall be filed by an authorized officer of the Petitioner Company working at the head office with the Registry of this Commission.

23.10  Subject to the law points being decided as above, in the present case, considering the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the foras below, in the present two cases, considering the specific facts and circumstances of the case(s), we order that amount already paid by the Petitioner to the Complainant(s)/Respondent(s) in pursuance to the order of the lower foras, if any, shall not be ordered to be refunded/recovered. However, direction of the District Forum, Chandigarh, to deposit Rs.5000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund Account by way of punitive damages are hereby set aside. If the Petitioner has already deposited this amount, it is entitled to get refund of this amount.

24.       The pending IAs in both the cases, if any, also stand disposed off.