Chandigarh District Commission Holds Miniso India Liable For Charging Rs. 12 For Carry Bag Without Priorly Informing Customer About Additional Charges

Brief Facts:

The Complainant visited the store of Miniso India, Sector 35 Chandigarh for shopping. The sales personnel presented a bill amounting to ₹ 1,380/-, which included an additional ₹ 12 charge for a carry bag. Despite the Complainant's objection to the extra fee, she was unable to avoid it and ended up paying the total amount under protest. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the store.

In response, Miniso contested the consumer complaint by raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction, concealment of facts, and cause of action. While it did not dispute the issuance of the invoice, it argued that there was no obligation for retailers to provide carry bags free of cost. It emphasized that the choice to purchase a paper carry bag was left to the customer, with information regarding the charge being prominently displayed on screens and at Miniso India's counter.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission referred to the decision of the NCDRC in the case of Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar, and held that the consumers have the right to be informed of any additional costs associated with their purchases, such as charges for carry bags, before they make their selections and payment. This information should be prominently displayed, allowing consumers to make an informed choice about patronizing a particular outlet and understanding the costs involved. Any deviation from this practice constitutes unfair trade practice, as defined under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Therefore, the District Commission held that Miniso's action of charging ₹ 12/- for the paper carry bag without prior disclosure of this cost amounted to unfair trade practice. Consequently, the District Commission directed the store to refund the wrongfully charged amount of ₹ 12/- to the Complainant. Additionally, considering the mental agony and harassment caused to the Complainant, the store was instructed to pay ₹ 500/- as compensation to her. Moreover, the store was held liable to reimburse the Complainant ₹ 500/- for the litigation costs incurred by her.