Bata Penalised For ‘Minting Money’ By Using Unfair Trade Practises
INTRODUCTION:
In 2009, Himachal Pradesh was the
first state to impose plastic ban in India and subsequently over 25 states like
Delhi, Karnataka, Bihar, Punjab etc, realised the ill-effects of the plastic
and imposed ban on plastic. After the ban, the shops operating in these states
started charging their customers an extra amount ranging INR 3 to 20 for
paper/cloth bags.
CASE SUMMARY
In the present case[1], on
February 5, 2019, Mr. Dinesh Prasad Raturi (“Complainant”) went to the showroom of Bata India Limited (“Opposite Party”) to purchase a shoe.
The Complainant purchased a pair of shoe worth INR 399 and he was billed INR
402, including INR 3 for paper bag with the logo of the Opposite Party and it
was further written “Bata Surprisingly Stylish” “Barcelona Milan
Singapore New Delhi Rome”. The Complainant was not even given an option of
whether he is willing to purchase the paper bag which promotes the Opposite
Party for an extra amount of INR 3. The Complainant filed a complaint stating
that the Opposite Party is misusing the consumer for advertising, at the cost
of the consumer, which leads to ‘unfair trade practise’. The Complainant filed
a consumer complaint demanding for refund of the INR 3 charged to him and prayed
to the forum to direct the Opposite Party to provide free carry bags to its
consumers along with the purchased items. The Complainant further demanded for
compensation of INR 5000 and the cost of litigation. The Opposite Party stated
in its reply that they provided the Complainant and other consumers with the
paper bag for the purpose of environmental safety.
DECISION OF
THE COURT
The District Consumer Forum of
Chandigarh (“Forum”) took into
consideration the views of both the parties and opined the following:
- If the Opposite Party is sincerely concerned about
the environment, the Opposite Party should provide the paper bags, free of cost
to its consumers - It was further observed by the Forum that the
Opposite Party is using ‘unfair trade practises’ in the mask of the
‘plastic-ban regulation’ to earn money from the consumers;
Based on the above observations,
the Forum levied the following compensation on the Opposite Party:
- The Opposite Party shall provide free carry bags to
all customers forthwith who purchase articles from its shop and stop unfair
trade practice i.e. to charge for carry bag; - The Opposite Party shall refund to the complainant
the amount of INR 3/- wrongly charged for the paper carry bag; - The Opposite Party shall pay Rs. 3,000/- to the
complainant towards compensation for mental and physical harassment; - The Opposite Party shall pay Rs. 1,000/- as
litigation expenses; - The Opposite Party shall pay punitive damages, to
deposit Rs. 5,000/- in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.
32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, U.T., Chandigarh.
The Forum further ordered that the
Opposite Party has to comply with the above-mentioned decision within 30 days
of availability of the certified copy of the order, failing which an interest
of 12% p.a. will be levied on the Opposite Party, on each of the above amount
mentioned.
OUR
ANALYSIS
Under Section 2(r)(ix) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986[2], the
definition of “Unfair Trade Practises” includes trade practise which “materially
misleads the public concerning the price at which a product or like products or
goods or services, have been or are, ordinarily sold or provided, and, for this
purpose, a representation as to price shall be deemed to refer to the price at
which the product or goods or services has or have been sold by sellers or
provided by suppliers generally in the relevant market unless it is clearly
specified to be the price at which the product has been sold or services have
been provided by the person by whom or on whose behalf the representation is
made.”
In the present case, the Opposite
Party has misled the Complainant projecting that the price of the paper bag
advertising the brand of the Opposite Party has to be compulsorily purchased
along with the item purchased by the consumer. The Complainant on approaching
the Forum analysed the facts of the case and held that the Opposite Party is
trying to ‘mint money’ using unfair trade practises, at the expense of the
consumers and thus penalised the Opposite Party, for the same.
CONCLUSION
In the light of the above discussion, it is
noticed that the regulation on ‘plastic ban’ was brought in, by the state
government, in view of environmental protection. However, it is noticed that
the shop-owners have shifted their burden of ‘non-usage of plastic’ to the
customer. The shops which are now charging an amount for the paper/cloth bag
was earlier providing plastic bags at ‘free of cost’ to the consumers to carry
the items purchased. However, after the plastic-ban, the shops have come with
this new mechanism of charging the consumer for the reusable bag provided by
them, along with their logo to promote their business. In our opinion, this
order should be implemented all over the country to avoid practising of such
‘unfair trade practises’ by the businesses.
Contributed by – Shreya Dasgupta
[1] MANU/SF/0005/2019
[2] http://ncdrc.nic.in/bare_acts/Consumer%20Protection%20Act-1986.html
King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys
New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com
By entering the email address you agree to our Privacy Policy.