Appeal No. : 15 of 2020 Appeal No. : 14 of 2020 Date of Institution : 13.01.2020 Date of Decision : 15.10.2020 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 Tanu Malik D/o Satish Kumar R/o H.No.486, Sector 55, Phase-1,Mohali. ..Respondent/complainant :- Present through Video Conferencing Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. ===================================================================== Appeal No. : 42 of 2020 Date of Institution : 13.02.2020 Date of Decision : 15.10.2020 Date of Institution : 13.01.2020 Date of Decision : 15.10.2020 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 Bhawna Gupta R/o H.No.163, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant :- Present through Video Conferencing Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. ===================================================================== Appeal No. : 43 of 2020 Date of Institution : 13.02.2020 Date of Decision : 15.10.2020 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 Madhu Bhatia R/o H.No.1263, 1 Floor, Sector 34, Chandigarh.st ..Respondent/complainant :- Present through Video Conferencing Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Sahil Dawar, Advocate for the respondent. ===================================================================== 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 Neha D/o Late Vikram Dogra R/o H.No.3554, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh. Appeal No. : 44 of 2020 Date of Institution : 13.02.2020 Date of Decision : 15.10.2020 ..Respondent/complainant :- Present through Video Conferencing Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ===================================================================== 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 Chanchal S/o Chaman Lal R/o H.No.2552, Sector 39-C, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant :- Present through Video Conferencing Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Chanchal, respondent in person. ===================================================================== Appeal No. : 64 of 2020 Date of Institution : 18.03.2020 Date of Decision : 15.10.2020 Appeal No. : 45 of 2020 Date of Institution : 17.02.2020 Date of Decision : 15.10.2020 Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), through its Director/Secretary/Principal Officer having is Head Office at Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar Off Jogeshwari, Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari, (East), Mumbai-400060, India. Director/Secretary/Principal Officer of Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.), Head Office at Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar Off Jogeshwari, Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari, (East), Mumbai-400060, India. Manager/Proprietor/Partner/Director of Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.), Plot No.178 & 178-A, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh -160002. Appellants/Opposite Parties V e r s u s Neha Goel W/o Rikash Garg, Plot No.35, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh. ..Respondent/complainant :- Present through Video Conferencing Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Rikash Goel, Advocate for the respondent. ===================================================================== Appeal No. : 66 of 2020 Date of Institution : 18.03.2020 Date of Decision : 15.10.2020 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 Veena Rani D/o Sh.Ramudgar R/o H.No.12, Block A, Janta Colony, Nayagaon, Mohali, SAS Nagar -160103 ..Respondent/complainant :- Present through Video Conferencing Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ================================================================== 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. : 67 of 2020 Date of Institution : 18.03.2020 Date of Decision : 15.10.2020 Varinder Kumar Advocate S/o Sh.Ramesh Kumar, R/o Ward No.10, House No.124, Purana Bazar, Morinda, District Ropar. ..Respondent/complainant :- Present through Video Conferencing Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ================================================================== 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 Anshul D/o Sh.Ajay Sharma, R/o H.No.2606-C, Near Paradise Apartment, Sector 125, Sunny Enclave, Kharar, Punjab. ..Respondent/complainant :- Present through Video Conferencing Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ================================================================================== Appeals U/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER 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 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions-I and II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), vide which the consumer complaints filed by complainants (respondents herein) were allowed and the appellant(s) was/were 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 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.14 of 2020 titled as Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Tanu Malik. Before the District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh, it was the case of the respondent that on 01.07.2017, vide bill Annexure C-1, she had purchased some clothes/articles worth Rs.1189/- from the appellant. However, in the said bill, it was found that the appellant had charged Rs.18/- in excess on account of paper carry bag for packing the purchased clothes/articles, to which she 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. 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 respondent had consented for purchase of the said carry bag; that the appellant had advertised/displaced at its premises stating that consumers are requested to carry their own bags and that separate charges will be taken in case they wish to obtain new carry bag from the appellant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. Similar is the case, in other consumer complaints also, out of which these appeals have arisen. The parties led evidence, in support of their cases, before the respective District Commissions. The District Commissions 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 Order dt. District Forum (now District Commission) 14/2020 in CC No.503/19 Big Bazar Vs. Smt.Tanu Malik Rs.12/- 12.12.2019 DCDRC-II 15/2020 in CC No.504/19 Big Bazar Vs. Bhawna Gupta Rs.12/- 12.12.2019 DCDRC-II 42/2020 in CC No.276/19 Big Bazar Vs. Madhu Bhatia Rs.12/- 14.01.2020 DCDRC-I 43/2020 in CC No.309/19 Big Bazar Vs. Neha Rs.18/- 10.01.2020 DCDRC-I 44/2020 in CC No.314/19 Big Bazar Vs. Chanchal Rs.18/- 09.01.2020 DCDRC-I 45/2020 in CC No.588/19 Big Bazar and Ors. Vs. Neha Goel Rs.12/- 03.01.2020 DCDRC-II 64/2020 in CC No.553/19 Big Bazar Vs. Veena Rani Rs.18/- 27.01.2020 DCDRC-I 66/2020 in CC No.661/19 Big Bazar Vs. Varinder Kumar Rs.18/- 28.01.2020 DCDRC-I 67/2020 in CC No.713/19 Big Bazar Vs. Anshul Rs.18/- 03.02.2020 DCDRC-I We have heard the contesting parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record, including the written arguments, submitted by the parties concerned. 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. He further submitted that the appellant has stopped using plastic carry bags for the sake of saving the environment; that the appellant is now purchasing paper 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. He further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the District Commissions 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, from the respondents side, it has been contested by parties who put in appearance in the appeals, that the carry bags have been given for the purpose of packing of the purchased articles without the asking or demand; and that the appellant has no right to charge for the carry bags; and that the orders passed by the District Commissions 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. Earlier also, a similar question fell for determination before this Commission in First Appeal No.238 of 2019 titled as Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar, decided wherein while negating the plea taken by Big Bazaar, the appeals filed by iton 18.05.2020 were dismissed and the orders passed by the District Commissions I and II were upheld by holding as under:- 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 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. -10- 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 made10 Explicit pricing of carry bags 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 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 thatDefinition the said "carry bags" means bags made from any plastic material, used for the but do not include bags that purpose of carrying or dispensing commodities 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 forcarry bags the purpose of 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 the conditions to be fulfilled during theof plastic waste course of manufacture, stocking, distribution, sale and use of carry bags and . Thus, Rule 10 sachets, in order to save the environment relates to explicit pricing , used for the purpose of carrying or 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, -11- 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 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 Commission 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 Commission in each appeal are upheld. In the present appeals also, being facts and circumstances of similar nature and against the same company, nothing new has been placed on record by the appellant, to convince this Commission to diverge from the findings given in supra). DespiteAshok Kumars case. ( the fact that this Commission in supra) held that the appellant wasAshok Kumars case. ( deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice by charging amount towards the carry bag, even then it did not discontinue with the said practice and have shown its courage to continue the same. The said act of the appellant needs to be deprecated. -12- For the reasons recorded above, it is held that the orders passed by District Commissions-I and II allowing the consumer complaints did not need any interference and as such are upheld. Resultantly, these appeals being devoid of merit, stand dismissed with no order as to cost. 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 15.10.2020 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER -13-