CAN STORES / SHOPS CHARGE FOR CARRY BAGS ?

Supreme Court, Consumer, NCDRC, Law, Advocate


Nowadays, it has become a common practice for Shops/ Stores likes Big Bazar, Lifestyles etc. to charge for Carrybags from Customers / Consumers ? As a Consumer this payment pinches a lot, because it is for nothing. Whether stores / shops can charge for carry bags legally?


Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission IN Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) and Ors. Vs. Somanshu Sharma

This Question arose for consideration of Ld Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) and Ors. Vs. Somanshu Sharma and Ors. - Appeal Nos. 10, 13, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of 2020 - Decided On: 08.07.2020.

Ld State Commission, in the above Judgment, came to the conclusion that Stores / Shops CANNOT charge for the Carrybags. Since, this Judgment is rendered by Chandigarh State Commission therefore it is executable only in the States of Punjab, Harayana and Chandigarh. It cannot be executed in other States.

JUDGMENT OF NCDRC / SUPREME COURT

The “Dadagiri” of these Stores will continue in other States, at least till the time, any enlightened / active Consumers file Complaints before their respective Commissions and get similar order by citing the above judgment OR Ld NCDRC/ Supreme Court concludes to this extent.

Location: Delhi, India
Praveen Agrawal Advocate Supreme Court of India A 37 LGF, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar - 4, New Delhi Phone # 9811702850 dokania100@gmail.com NO CALLS PLEASE ONLY WHATSAPP ME - IF I FEEL NECESSARY I WILL CALL YOU BACK

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

WILL PROCEEDINGS START DE-NOVO OR CONTINUE IN CASE OF RETURN OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7 CPC?

Image
      Order 7 and Return of Plaint is one of the fundamental objections taken by Defense Counsel in Civil Litigation. In case of return of Plaint from a Court lacking inherent Jurisdiction to the court of appropriate Jurisdiction, a moot question arises for consideration is whether the proceedings shall start “De-Novo” (fresh) or it will be a continuance of the earlier proceedings ?   There has been a difference of opinion even in Supreme Court and therefore the matter was referred to a larger bench. The Issue is now settled in the matter of  EXL Careers Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services  Private Limited    decided on 05-08-2020 as follows :-    (1) The proceedings will start afresh (DE-NOVO) and NO cognizance of  proceedings or earlier court will be considered.   (2) For the purpose of limitation, Plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period during which he prosecuted the case before the court having no jurisdiction.   ...
Read more

ARE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF SECTION 65B EVIDENCE ACT, CERTIFICATE?

Image
           Electronic Evidence plays a vital role in any trial – Civil or Criminal. As per Common understanding Electronic Evidence is inadmissible, if it is not accompanied with Section 65B Certificate. Thereby debarring good evidence because of lack of Section 65B Certificate.   Law on this aspect is re-visited by Supreme Court and it is held as under:-   • If Original Electronic Evidence is produced, there is no need of Section 65B Certificate. However, copies of Original Electronic Evidence will require Section 65B Certificate.    • Electronic Evidence cannot be proved as Secondary Evidence as per Evidence Act.   • Section 65A and 65B of Evidence Act is a complete code in itself.    • Concerned Court can relax the production of Section 65B Certificate to the Person who is NOT in possession of device from which electronic evidence is produced.    Case Law - Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao ...
Read more

BORROWER LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST EVEN WHEN LENDER REFUSES TO ACCEPT PAYMENT

Image
      The Common understanding is if Lender has refused to accept the repayment of Loan, then the Borrower’s Liability to pay the interest ceases from the date of such refusal. However, this does not seems to be the correct proposition of Law.  In an recent judgment titled Balwinder Singh Vs. Mithoot Finance (P) Limited and Ors Ld National Consumer Dispute REdressal Commission (NCDRC), (Revision Petition No. 2194 of 2015, Decided On: 23.07.2020 ) refused to accept the argument of the Borrower that he has tendered to repay and imposed an interest on the borrower even for the period subsequent to the said offer to repay.   While coming to this conclusion , LD NCDRC relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India &Ors. , II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC) has observed as under:-  “9. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal...
Read more