Charging Rs. 7 For Carry Bag, Gurgaon District Commission Holds Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Liable

Brief Facts:

Mr Deepak (“Complainant”) went for shopping in the store of 'Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd.' (“Store”) in MGF Metropolis Mall. He purchased certain clothes for which he paid Rs. 5000/-. The Store also charged Rs. 7/- for a paper carry bag. Upon this, the Complainant argued that the Store was duty-bound to provide a free carry bag to its customers. He demanded the Store to either provide a free carry bag or allow him to return it on a later date against a refund of Rs. 7/-. However, the Store refused and stated that the carry bag in question was not refundable. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (“District Commission”) against the Store.

Observations by the District Commission:

At the outset, the District Commission referred to the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) in the case of Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.) vs Ashok Kumar [Revision Petition No. 975 of 2020], wherein the NCDRC rejected Big Bazar's argument that it could impose charges in case the customer wished to obtain a carry bag, or when the carry bag is sold on a 'no-profit-no-loss' basis, or when the customers were requested to carry their own bags. It was held that the carry bags must be provided for free as the cost of these carry bags is generally covered within the profit margins of the products. The NCDRC also observed that such stores do not allow the customers to carry their bags inside the store premises and hence, they cannot be allowed to take advantage of their dominating position.

The District Commission also relied on M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. vs Pankaj Chandgothia [Appeal No. 24 of 2019], wherein the Chandigarh State Commission held that it is the duty of a store to provide free carry bags to customers purchasing articles from its store. The District Commission referred to Section 36(5) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which explicitly states that unless otherwise agreed, the seller must bear all expenses incidental to putting goods into a deliverable state including packaging costs.

As a result, the District Commission held the Store liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Consequently, the Store was directed to refund Rs. 7/- to the Complainant. The Store was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for mental harassment and agony, along with Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

Case Title: Deepak vs Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd.

Case Number: CC/588 of 2024

Advocate for the Complainant: None (Complainant-in-person)

Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sahil Bhardwaj

Date of Judgment: 18.02.2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order