Consumer protection: Seller can't charge for bag carrying its name

The National Commission held that charging a customer for a bag, which prominently displayed the company's name, logo, or tagline, amounted to advertising at the customer's expense

In two unconnected incidents, Dinesh Parshad Raturi of Chandigarh and Rana Pratap Bhowmik of Agartala purchased footwear from different Bata showrooms. The showrooms packed the footwear and put them in carry bags for which an additional charge of Rs 3 was levied in the bill.

 

The bags had Bata’s name and logo printed on them. Therefore, Raturi and Bhowmik filed consumer cases before their respective consumer commissions to challenge the charge levied for the bags. They contended that Bata should allow customers to bring carry bags instead of compelling them to purchase bags. Secondly, if a customer requires a carry bag, a plain carry bag should be sold, not one with the seller’s name and logo, as it would result in the customer paying for an advertisement of the company’s products. Bata contested the complaint, arguing that it was only recovering a part of the cost of the bag.

 

After considering the rival contentions, the Chandigarh District Commission ordered Bata to discontinue the unfair trade practice and refund the amount of Rs 3 charged for the bags. Additionally, Raturi was awarded Rs 3,000 as compensation and Rs 1,000 towards litigation costs. Furthermore, Bata was saddled with punitive damages of Rs 5,000 to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

 

Similarly, the Agartala District Commission ordered Bata to refund Rs 3 charged for the bag. It also directed the company to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for unfair trade practices and Rs 3,000 towards litigation costs.

 

Both decisions were challenged in separate appeals filed before the Chandigarh State Commission and the Tripura State Commission. The company claimed that every manufacturer has an inherent right to display its trademarks or brand on the products themselves, as well as on primary and secondary packaging, and any other material sold by it.

 

Since the appeals were dismissed by both the State Commissions, Bata approached the National Commission through two revision petitions challenging the orders. It contended that the orders of the District and State Commissions were regressive and contrary to the global trend to protect the environment. Bata further argued that the purchase of carry bags was optional and not compulsory. It stated that there was no law in India mandating a trader to provide free carry bags. The company also claimed that any restriction on printing its name or logo would violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

 

The National Commission clubbed both revision petitions together and decided them by a common order. It observed that there is a trend to disallow customers from carrying their bags and instead make them deposit the same with security at the entrance. It emphasised the necessity to either provide free carry bags or ensure compliance with the rules for selling them. It noted that if bags are sold, they must be covered under the definition of goods, with the price printed on each bag. However, this was missing, and consumers were arbitrarily asked to pay for the carry bags at the time of billing. The Commission held this to be an unfair trade practice.

 

It also observed that the bag had the tagline “Bata Surprisingly Stylish” and “Milan Singapore New Delhi Rome”. Charging a customer for such a bag, which prominently displayed the company’s name, logo, or tagline, amounted to advertising the company’s products at the customer’s expense. Hence, charging for such a bag constituted an unfair trade practice.

 

Accordingly, by its order dated November 27, 2024, delivered by Dr Inder Jit Singh, the National Commission dismissed Bata’s revision petitions and instructed its chief executive to ensure that all outlets comply with the order.

 

The writer is a consumer activist