Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Acts
  • SECTION 36 SALE OF GOODS ACT 1930
  • provisions of Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011,
  • provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules 2011.
  • Rule 3 of the said Rules,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Acts
  • SECTION 36 SALE OF GOODS ACT 1930
  • provisions of Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011,
  • provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules 2011.
  • Rule 3 of the said Rules,
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This consolidated opinion arises from numerous appeals (instituted between October and November 2019) by Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) against orders of District Forum I and District Forum II, U.T., Chandigarh. The appeals were decided on 18.05.2020 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (Bench: Justice Raj Shekhar Attri, President; Mrs. Padma Pandey and Mr. Rajesh K. Arya, Members).

The underlying consumer complaints (examples drawn from the record) alleged that purchasers were charged amounts (commonly Rs.18/-, but also Rs.12/-, Rs.10/- in some matters) for carry bags provided when goods were handed over. In the lead matter (First Appeal No. 238 of 2019 — Big Bazaar v. Ashok Kumar), the respondent alleged purchase on 23.03.2019 and production of an invoice (Annexure C-1) showing an Rs.18/- charge for a carry bag. The District Forums allowed the consumer complaints, directing the retailer to refund the respective carry-bag charges, to pay compensation/damages for deficiency in service, and litigation expenses. The retailer, Big Bazaar, appealed those orders to the State Commission.

The Commission heard the appeals together because they raised common questions of law and fact and ultimately rendered a consolidated decision on 18.05.2020.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a retailer may charge customers for a carry bag under Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 (i.e., whether the retailer was entitled to recover the carry-bag cost from the purchaser).
  2. Whether charging for carry bags, where the bag was used to put goods into a deliverable state, is permissible in view of the obligations of the seller under Section 36(5) of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (concerning expenses incidental to putting goods into a deliverable state), and whether such charging amounts to deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The appellant (Big Bazaar) contended that Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 permits retailers not to provide carry bags free of cost and therefore the retail charging of the carry-bag cost was lawful.
  • The appellant asserted it had discontinued plastic bags for environmental reasons and supplied cloth/jute bags whose cost was passed on to customers; these bags were displayed with MRP and photographs at the premises;
  • The appellant maintained that customers voluntarily chose and purchased the carry bags (sold on a no-profit, no-loss basis), and therefore there was no deficiency in service.
  • It was also contended (by implication in argument) that purchase of carry bags was optional for customers.

Respondents' Arguments

  • The respondents (consumer-complainants) contended that carry bags were provided for packing the purchased goods without their requesting or choosing the bags, and that the retailer had no right to separately charge for such bags.
  • The respondents argued that charging for the bag in the circumstances amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, and that the District Forum orders directing refunds and damages were correct.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission considered the rival contentions and the record and proceeded by applying statutory principles to the admitted facts. The analysis can be summarized in the following steps, in the language and emphasis used by the Commission:

  1. Legal starting point: the Commission emphasized that a seller is obliged to deliver goods in a complete state of delivery; "packing" is part of placing goods in a deliverable state. The Commission relied on Sub-Section (5) of Section 36 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which provides that unless otherwise agreed, the expenses of and incidental to putting the goods into a deliverable state shall be borne by the seller.
  2. Application to facts: in the matters before the Commission, goods (for example: macaroni, Dettol, Oreo, urad, etc.) were placed in carry bags by the appellant to make them deliverable and to hand over physical possession to the purchasers. The Commission found that the appellant failed to prove that the carry bag had been separately purchased by the respondents of their “own free will.”
  3. Result of applying Section 36(5): because the bags were used to put goods into a deliverable state, the costs associated with such packing (including provision of a carry bag used for that purpose) were to be borne by the seller; the appellant therefore had no right to recover such expenses from the purchasers.
  4. Interaction with Plastic Waste Rules, 2011: the appellant relied on Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, which provides that no carry bags shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers and contemplates explicit pricing of carry bags to encourage reuse. The Commission examined the Rules as a whole, including the definition of "carry bags" in Rule 3 and the policy aim of minimizing plastic waste.
  5. Why Rule 10 did not help the appellant: the Commission held that Rule 10, although providing that carry bags need not be free, could not be used to justify charging where the bag was used to put goods into a deliverable state and where the obligation under Section 36(5) applied. The Commission concluded that the appellant could not derive assistance from Rule 10 to recover from purchasers the costs of bags used to make goods deliverable.
  6. On the claim that purchase of carry bags was "optional": the Commission noted an inconsistency in the appellant's position. The appellant argued both that purchase was optional and that customers could not bring their own bags into the premises. The Commission observed that preventing customers from bringing their own bags left them no real choice and that requiring a customer to carry numerous separate bags from home for multiple items was unrealistic. Consequently, the Commission treated the provision of the bag as integral to the seller's duty to deliver the goods in a deliverable state.
  7. Conclusion from the analysis: because the appellant provided bags to make the goods deliverable and failed to establish voluntary separate purchase by the consumers, charging for such bags amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. The Commission found no reason to reverse the District Forums' findings.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED — The Commission dismissed all the consolidated appeals and upheld the District Forums' orders.

Direct consequences (as recorded in the opinion):

  • The orders of the respective District Forums (which had allowed the consumer complaints and directed refunds of the respective amounts charged for carry bags, and awarded compensation/damages and litigation expenses) were upheld.
  • The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • Certified copies of the Commission's order were to be sent to the parties free of charge and one copy placed in the connected appeal files; files were to be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Broader implications: the opinion does not purport to create a new legal precedent beyond applying Section 36(5) of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and interpreting the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 in the factual context presented. The Commission expressly declined to reverse the District Forums' findings and treated the charging for a bag used to make goods deliverable as a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice in the circumstances of these cases.

Decision pronounced: 18.05.2020. Bench: Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President), Padma Pandey (Member), Rajesh K. Arya (Member).

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) v. Ashok Kumar

    Appeal No. : 239 of 2019 Appeal No. : 238 of 2019 Date of Institution : 21.10.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Ashok Kumar resident of H.No.1263, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 05.09.2019 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh = Appeal No. : 240 of 2019 Date of Institution : 18.10.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Date of Institution : 18.10.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Santosh Kumari resident of H.No.1087, Sector 15, Panchkula, Haryana. ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 05.09.2019 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh Appeal No. : 241 of 2019 Date of Institution : 18.10.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Bharat Dawar s/o Ashok Kumar resident of H.No.1263, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 05.09.2019 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Appeal No. : 242 of 2019 Date of Institution : 18.10.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Vinod Bhatia resident of H.No.1087, Sector 15, Panchkula. ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 05.09.2019 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Gourav Kumar Verma resident of H.No.1087, Sector 15, Panchkula ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal No. : 244 of 2019 Date of Institution : 18.10.2019 Appeal No. : 243 of 2019 Date of Institution : 18.10.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Appeal arising out of order dated 05.09.2019 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Baldev Raj resident of H.No.1087, Sector 15, Panchkula, ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 05.09.2019 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh Appeal No. : 245 of 2019 Date of Institution : 18.10.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s R/o H.No.1263, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.Sarita Kumari ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 04.09.2019 passed by District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma. Appeal No. : 246 of 2019 Date of Institution : 21.10.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020

    2. Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Head Office, Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai-40060. Appellants/Opposite Parties V e r s u s Sanah Sahni d/o Vijay Sahni r/o House No.2005, 2 Floor, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh -160022.nd ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellants. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate proxy for Sh.Brijesh Khosla, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 20.09.2019 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s R/o H.No.1263, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.Sahil Dawar Appeal No. : 247 of 2019 Date of Institution : 18.10.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, respondent in person. Appeal arising out of order dated 02.09.2019 passed by District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Sahil Dawar son of Ashok Kumar resident of H.No.1263, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, respondent in person. Appeal No. : 249 of 2019 Appeal No. : 248 of 2019 Date of Institution : 18.10.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Appeal arising out of order dated 13.09.2019 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Ashok Kumar resident of H.No.215, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 05.09.2019 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh Appeal No. : 250 of 2019 Date of Institution : 18.10.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Date of Institution : 18.10.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Head Office, Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai-40060 Appellants/Opposite Parties V e r s u s Bhupinder Singh Matharoo s/o Resham Singh r/o Plot No.114, Industrial Area, Phase-I, 160002. ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate proxy for Sh.Brijesh Khosla, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 20.09.2019 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh -10- Appeal No. : 274 of 2019 Date of Institution : 15.11.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s R/o H.No.1087, Sector 15, Panchkula.Sourav Kumar ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 03.09.2019 passed by District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s -11- Appeal No. : 275 of 2019 Date of Institution : 20.11.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 R/o H.No.1263, Sector 34-C, ChandigarhBharat Dawar ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 18.10.2019 passed by District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s R/o H.No.1263, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.Sarita Kumari ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. -12- Appeal No. : 276 of 2019 Date of Institution : 15.11.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Appeal arising out of order dated 17.10.2019 passed by District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s R/o H.No.1087, Sector 15, Panchkula (Haryana).Santosh Kumari ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 16.10.2019 passed by District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh = -13- Appeal No. : 300 of 2019 Date of Institution : 06.12.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Appeal No. : 277 of 2019 Date of Institution : 20.11.2019 Date of Decision : 18.05.2020 Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s R/o H.No.1087, Sector 15, Panchkula, Haryana.Baldev Raj ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 16.10.2019 passed by District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh -14- Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Basement, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager/Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Mr.Jitender Sharma Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s R/o H.No.1263, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.Bharat Dawar ..Respondent/complainant : Ms.Rupali, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai,Present Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. Appeal arising out of order dated 17.09.2019 passed by District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT By this order, we propose to dispose of the afore-captioned appeals as common questions of law and facts have been originated therefrom. All these appeals have been originated from the orders passed by District Forums I and II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Forum) as mentioned above, vide which the consumer complaints filed by complainants (respondents herein) were allowed and the appellant was directed to refund the respective amounts charged towards carry bags; to pay compensation/damages for deficiency in providing service and also litigation expenses, in the respective consumer complaints. Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. At the time of arguments, it -15- was agreed by the contesting parties, that facts involved in the above appeals, by and large, are the same, and therefore, the same can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order. Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from First Appeal No.238 of 2019 titled as Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar. Before the District Forum, it was the case of the respondent that on 23.03.2019, he had purchased some articles from the appellant-Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Elante Mall. Copy of invoice dated 23.03.2019 has been placed on record as Annexure C-1. The appellant has charged Rs.18/- in excess on account of carry bag for packing the purchased articles, to which he resisted but to no avail. It has been the case of the respondent that the said act of the appellant, by charging for the carry bag, amounted to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence consumer complaints had been filed by the respondents, before the respective District Forums. On notice being issued, the appellant while admitting the factual matrix of the case pleaded that it was right in charging amount from the respondent towards carry bag; that the appellant provides a range of shopping bags which are chargeable, which are sold on no profit and no loss basis; that the MRP and photograph of the said cloth bag was duly displayed at the premises of the appellant; and that the respondent chose one of the bags costing Rs.18/- (in appeal no. 238 of 2019). Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. The parties led evidence, in support of their cases, before the respective District Forums. The District Forums after hearing the contesting parties had passed the impugned orders, allowing the consumer complaints, with following details, out of which these appeals have arisen:- S.No. FA No. Title Charged for carry bag Date of order Forum 239/19 in CC No.179/19 Big Bazar Vs. Santosh Kumari Rs.18/- 5/9/19 DF-II 240/19 in CC No.90/19 Big Bazar Vs.Bharat Dawar Rs.10/- 5/9/19 DF-II 241/19 in CC No.285/19 Big Bazar Vs.Vinod Bhatia Rs.12/- 5/9/19 DF-II 242/19 Big Bazar Vs. Gourav Kumar Rs.12/- 5/9/19 DF-II -16- in CC No.286/19 243/19 in CC No.181/19 Big Bazar Vs. Baldev Raj Rs.18/- 5/9/19 DF-II 244/19 in CC No.126/19 Big Bazar Vs. Sarita Kumari Rs.18/- 4/9/19 DF-I 245/19 in CC No.291/19 Big Bazar Vs. Sanah Sahni Rs.18/- 20/9/19 DF-II 246/19 in CC No.124/19 Big Bazar Vs. Sahil Dawar Rs.18/- 02/9/19 DF-I 247/19 in CC No.81/19 Big Bazar Vs. Sahil Dawar Rs.18/- 13/9/19 DF-II 248/19 in CC No.89/19 Big Bazar Vs. Ashok Kumar Rs.18/- 05/09/19 DF-II 249/19 in CC No.293/19 Big Bazar Vs. Bhupinder Singh Rs.18/- 20/9/19 DF-II 250/19 in CC No.125/19 Big Bazar Vs. Sourav Kumar Rs.18/- 3/9/19 DF-I 274/19 in CC No.199/19 Big Bazar Vs. Bharat Dawar Rs.18/- 18/10/19 DF-I -17- 275/19 in CC No.162/19 Big Bazar Vs. Sarita Kumari Rs.18/- 17/10/19 DF-I 276/19 in CC No.223/19 Big Bazar Vs. Santosh Kumari Rs.18/- 16/10/19 DF-I 277/19 in CC No.224/19 Big Bazar Vs. Baldev Raj Rs.18/- 16/10/19 DF-I 300/19 in CC No.218/19 Big Bazar Vs. Bharat Dawar Rs.18/- 17/9/19 DF-I We have heard the contesting parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record, including the written arguments. Counsel for the appellant in all the appeals, contended with vehemence that the amount towards the carry bags was rightly charged from the respondents, keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, which says that no carry bags shall be provided free of costs by retailers to the consumers. She further submitted that the appellant has stopped using plastic carry bags for the sake of saving the environment; that the appellant is now purchasing cloth bags and its cost is being passed over to the customers; and that the respondents themselves chose to purchase the said carry bags from the appellant. She further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the District Forum allowing the consumer complaints are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be set aside and that the complaints deserve dismissal. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents in all the appeals contended that the carry bags have been given for the purpose of packing of the purchased articles without the asking or demand of the respondent in each appeal; and that the appellant has no right to charge for the carry bags. According to the appellant, the orders passed by the District Forums in each appeal are fully legal and are liable to be upheld. This Commission has considered the rival contentions and meticulously gone through the material available on the record. It may be stated here that it is well settled law that each seller is obliged to deliver the goods in the complete state of delivery. The delivery of goods means physically handing over the goods from buyer to seller in a complete deliverable state. The goods can be delivered straight, when these are fully packed as per the nature and environment affecting the goods. The packing of goods is also a state in putting the goods in the deliverable state. If you want to buy biscuits or bread, those should not be given in open and rather should be packed in such a manner, to save them from external atmosphere. All kinds of expenses incurred in order to putting goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller. Our above view is supported by the provisions of Sub Section (5) of Section 36 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which makes it absolutely clear that unless otherwise agreed, the -18- expenses of and incidental to putting the goods into a deliverable state, shall be borne by the seller. Thus, under this provision of law, all the expenses with regard to packing, providing carry bags etc. shall be borne by the vendor in order to put the goods into a deliverable state. In the present cases also, the goods with different brands name i.e. macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., were put in the carry-bags by the appellant, in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to the respondents. The appellant has failed to prove its case that the carry-bag was separately purchased by the respondents/purchasers of their own free will, rather, the appellant has used the same for the purpose of putting the above said goods to make them into a deliverable state. Thus, all the expenses required and incurred to make the goods into a deliverable state for handing over to the purchasers thereof, were to be borne by the appellant. In this view of the matter, the appellant has no right to recover the expenses borne by it on the packing of the goods or putting the goods in a carry bag for making the same in a deliverable state. At the time of arguments, when confronted with the above situation, Counsel for the appellant with a view to buttress her cases, placed heavy reliance on provisions of Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, to contend that the appellant was not bound to provide carry bags, free of cost, to the respondents. Relevant part of the said Rule is reproduced hereunder:-

    . - No carry bags shall be made available free10 Explicit pricing of carry bags 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 costs in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation.
    No doubt, from Rule 10 afore-extracted, it is evident that no carry bags shall be available free of cost by the retailers to customers, yet, when we go through Rule 3 of the said Rules, under the heading , it is found that the said "carry bags" means Definition bags made but do from any plastic material, used for the purpose of carrying or dispensing commodities not include bags that constitute or form an integral part of the packaging in which goods are sealed prior to use. Relevant part of the said Rule reads as under:- " " means bags made from any plastic material, used for the purpose ofcarry bags carrying or dispensing commodities but do not include bags that constitute or form an integral part of the packaging in which goods are sealed prior to use;] When we read the said Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, as a whole, it reveals that the said Rules have been framed with a view to enforce the provisions relating to the use, collection, segregation, transportation and disposal and also theof plastic waste conditions to be fulfilled during the course of manufacture, stocking, distribution, sale and use of . Thus, Rule 10 carry bags and sachets, in order to save the environment relates to explicit , used for the purpose of carrying or pricing of carry bags, made from any plastic material dispensing commodities, to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation, to save the environment. Whereas, in the present cases, as stated above, the appellant failed to deliver the goods in the complete state of delivery and on the other hand, charged for the carry bags made of jute, which was required to put the goods i.e. macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to -19- the respondents; thereby violating the provisions of Sub Section (5) of Section 36 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, referred to above, which says that all the expenses with regard to packing etc. shall be borne by the vendor in order to put the goods into a deliverable state. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the appellant from the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules 2011. 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 deliverable 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 be 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 service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. No case is made out to reverse the findings of the respective District Forum in each appeal. 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. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy thereof be placed in all the connected appeal files. The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced 18.05.2020 Sd/- [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT -20- Sd/- (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Sd/- (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER -21-

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) v. Ashok Kumar
    (May 18, 2020)