Chandigarh State Commission Holds 24 Seven Liable For Charging Extra Money For Promotional Carry Bags
The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held '24 Seven' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for charging money for carry bags, which had its official branding. It was held that all costs associated with delivering goods in a usable state, including packaging, must...
The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held '24 Seven' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for charging money for carry bags, which had its official branding. It was held that all costs associated with delivering goods in a usable state, including packaging, must be borne by the seller.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased groceries worth Rs. 1,250/- from 24 Seven. He was surprised to find an additional charge of Rs. 10/- for a carry bag on his bill but felt compelled to purchase it. On another occasion, he bought goods again and was directed to purchase a cotton carry bag priced at Rs. 20/-, which displayed 24 Seven's logo. Despite requesting a free carry bag, 24 Seven refused. The Complainant sent a legal notice to 24 Seven, seeking a refund for the carry bags, but received no response. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (“District Commission”).
In response, 24 Seven denied that the Complainant was compelled to buy the carry bags, claiming that he purchased both the paper and cotton bags voluntarily and with full awareness of their prices. It further argued that customers were encouraged to bring their own bags and that free paper bags, available in various sizes, were offered.
The District Commission dismissed the complaint. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (“State Commission”). He argued that discrepancies existed between the sizes of free and chargeable bags, leading consumers to feel misled into purchasing the bags due to the inadequacy of the free options. Furthermore, the free bags lacked handles and were unsuitable for carrying all purchased items.
Observations of the State Commission:
The State Commission observed that it is unreasonable to expect customers to carry their purchased items in bags without handles, especially when such bags are impractical for carrying heavy or multiple items. It was held that the shopkeeper/store shall provide functional bags with handles at no cost, as part of the basic shopping experience. Failing to do so would undermine customer satisfaction and impose unnecessary inconvenience. The State Commission also noted that both the free and chargeable bags prominently displayed 24 Seven's branding. Therefore, it was held that 24 Seven inappropriately charged customers for bags which also served as advertisements.
Additionally, the State Commission criticized the practice of offering only non-functional free bags without handles, which effectively coerced customers into purchasing chargeable ones with handles. This was deemed a subtle form of coercion, as customers were left with little choice. The absence of handles rendered the free bags almost useless, undermining the retailer's claim of providing something for free.
The State Commission also referred to Section 35(5) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which provides that all costs associated with delivering goods in a usable state, including packaging, must be borne by the seller. It rejected 24 Seven's arguments that charging for carry bags was optional or supported by environmental policies. The State Commission held that forcing customers to pay for bags under such conditions constituted an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
As a result, the Complainant's appeal was allowed, and the District Commission's order was set aside. 24 Seven was directed to refund Rs. 10/- and Rs. 20/- for the two bags, pay Rs. 3000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as legal costs to the Complainant.
Case Title: Jaspreet Singh vs 24 Seven
Case No.: Appeal No. 227 of 2024
Advocate for the Complainant/Appellant: None (Complainant in person)
Advocate for the Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar