- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
District Consumer Forum: Supermarkets Charging For Carry Bags With Companys' Logo Amounts To 'Unfair Trade Practice'
District Consumer Forum: Supermarkets Charging For Carry Bags With Companys' Logo Amounts To 'Unfair Trade Practice' The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Forum) Hyderabad, on 19 February 2021, stated in the case titled Baglekar Akash Kumar (Complainant) v. More Megastore Retail Limited (Opposite Party), that the supermarkets selling carry bags to the customers with...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
District Consumer Forum: Supermarkets Charging For Carry Bags With Companys' Logo Amounts To 'Unfair Trade Practice'
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Forum) Hyderabad, on 19 February 2021, stated in the case titled Baglekar Akash Kumar (Complainant) v. More Megastore Retail Limited (Opposite Party), that the supermarkets selling carry bags to the customers with its logo for its advertising lead to unfair trade practice.
A Bench comprising of Vakkanti Narasimha Rao (President), PVTR Jawahar Babu (Member), and RS Rajeshree (Member) of the District Forum said that "Retail outlet cannot use consumer as a tool for their advertisement by forcing them to pay for carry bags with the company logo."
The District Forum added that, using the Consumer as an advertisement agent at his cost tantamount to unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act (Consumer Act).
The factual background of the case is that the complainant purchased a product from the Super Market at Rs.118/- which included the price of the plastic cover which was given to him. The carry bag supplied by the opposite party after collecting Rs. 3/- towards its cost contained a company's name and logo.
According to the District Forum, using the consumer as their advertisement agent at the costs of the consumer is unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Leads to unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complainant approached the Telangana State Information and Alternative Consumer Disputes Centre requesting the Commissioner to take necessary action against the opposite party.
Issues before the District Forum
- Whether any deficiency of service is there or any unfair trade practice is made out upon the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought?
The Forum observed that "The opposite party has been using its esteemed consumers as its Advertisement agents, by selling the carry bags to the customers with their Logo without prominent prior notice and information before the customer makes his choice of patronizing its retail outlets and before the customer makes his selection of goods for purchase and also without disclosing the silent specifications and price of the carry bags."
It added, "Disclosing the price of carry bags at the payment counter seems to be undoubtedly an "unfair trade practice". Under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 {Corresponding Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019}."
The Forum stated, "As a matter of Consumer rights, the consumer has the right to know that there will be an additional cost for carry bags and also to know the silent specifications and price of the carry bags before he exercises his choice of patronizing a particular retail outlet before he makes his selection of goods for purchase from the said retail outlet."
Reliance was put on the judgment of the case titled Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.,) v. Ashok Kumar, whereby Big Bazar was restrained from imposing an additional cost of carry bags bearing the company logo. The National Commission has held that disclosing the price of carry bags at the payment counter also amounts to unfair trade practices.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties at length issues certain directions to the supermarkets and the companies wherein it suggested that free carry bags should be provided to all customers if in case they printed their Company Logo on the carry bags. They may charge for the plain carry bags, with prior intimation and consent of Consumers and by displaying the information at conspicuous places in the Business premises.
The Forum directed the opposite party to "Pay back Rs.3/- which was charged to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a." It further directed to, "Pay Rs.15, 000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards compensation for collecting Rs. 3/- from the complainant for the cost of carry bag having the Company Logo as it amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice with deceptive nature apart from spurious Acts."
It further ordered a cost of Rs.1500/- (Rupees Fifteen Hundred only) towards the proceedings.