Charging Rs. 20 Extra For Packaging, Kollam District Commission Directs Chicking To Refund, Pay Rs 15k Compensation And Rs. 5k Litigation Costs

Brief Facts:

Mr Shemin A.S. (“Complainant”), a practising advocate in Kollam District court, purchased a food parcel from Chicking (“Store”). The store charged the Complainant in addition to the Rs. 590/- cost of the food items, an extra Rs. 20/- as packing charges. When the Complainant questioned these charges, the billing staff member, who also served as the cashier in charge, responded with a nonchalant attitude, stating that such charges were commonplace in their branch and across other branches in Kerala and were in accordance with the store's norms. Expressing concern about customer satisfaction and objecting to the collection of packing charges or any additional fees apart from GST, the Complainant filed a pre-litigation petition before the Taluk Legal Services Committee at Kollam. Despite this, the Complainant didn't receive any satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam, Kerala (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the store manager and the company's director.

In response to the allegations, the manager contended that the store was a mere franchisee operating under the Chicking company's umbrella. The manager asserted that their operations strictly adhere to the instructions and guidelines provided by the Chicking company. The practice of imposing packing charges, according to them, is not a decision made at the franchisee level but is a uniform policy implemented by the Chicking company across all its outlets in Kerala. The decisions regarding packing charges and related policies, they argue, are beyond the control of the 1st opposite party as a franchisee.

The director of the company didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted that there was an implied warranty of merchantability and the seller's agreement with the Complainant to provide a product in a condition suitable for its intended use. Further, the District Commission noted that there was an expectation that the seller would cover costs to ensure that the product was in the deliverable condition.

The District Commission held that consumers, especially when purchasing essential items like food, have the right to expect products meeting certain standards and free from defects compromising safety or usability. Therefore, the District Commission held that the practice of charging parking fees by the store and by the company constituted an unfair trade practice. Further, it held that the store didn't provide any reasonable justification for charging extra for packaging.

The District Commission held that Section 86(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provided liability of a product seller in a product liability action if the seller has substantial control over packaging. Therefore, the District Commission directed the store and the company to refund Rs. 20/- for packing charges to the Complainant. The District Commission also directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant for suffering due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Additionally, further, the Complainant was awarded Rs. 5000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.