Court rules no unfair trade practice where customer voluntarily purchased carry bag after prior display of charges; no law mandates free provision of carry bags
In a significant ruling delivered on October 30, 2026, the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun Bench, dismissed the consumer complaint filed by Dr. Ramesh Singh Danu against Vishal Mega Mart, holding that charging Rs. 18 for a carry bag does not amount to an unfair trade practice when the customer is informed in advance and voluntarily chooses to purchase the bag.
The case arose from a purchase made by Dr. Danu on January 18, 2023, at Vishal Mega Mart where he was charged Rs. 18 as part of his bill for a carry bag. Alleging this to be an unfair trade practice, Dr. Danu sent a legal notice to the store, which remained unanswered, leading him to file a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Almora. The District Commission dismissed his complaint, prompting the appeal before the State Commission.
The respondent, Vishal Mega Mart, defended its practice by stating that the charges for different variants of carry bags were clearly displayed at multiple points in the store, including the billing counter. The store personnel had also informed Dr. Danu of the charges and the option to use his own bag. The Commission found no evidence that the complainant was coerced or misled to purchase the bag. Moreover, the complainant did not protest the charge at the time of billing, indicating his free will in purchasing the carry bag.
The appellant's counsel referred to a 2020 National Consumer Commission judgment in Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) v. Sahil Dawar, which had held that charging for carry bags without prior prominent notice constitutes an unfair trade practice. However, the Uttarakhand Commission distinguished that precedent, noting that in the present case, the store had fulfilled the requirement of giving prior notice through prominent displays and verbal information, and the complainant had consented to the purchase.
The Commission emphasized that there is no statutory obligation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or any other law mandating retailers to supply carry bags free of cost. Hence, charging a reasonable amount for carry bags does not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the District Commission's decision and clarifying that consumers cannot claim free carry bags as a matter of right when the charges are transparently communicated and the purchase is voluntary.
This ruling sets a clear precedent for retail stores regarding the sale of carry bags and consumer rights, balancing the interests of consumers and business practices in compliance with the law.
Bottom Line:
Consumer Protection - Charging price for carry bag does not amount to unfair trade practice where customer was informed about charges, display regarding paid carry bags was made in store, and customer voluntarily opted to purchase the carry bag - There is no law mandating free supply of carry bags by shopkeeper.
Statutory provision(s):
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 41
Dr. Ramesh Singh Danu v. Vishal Mega Mart, (USCDRC)(Dehradun) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3011049
