Ahmedabad: The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has criticised the practice of retailers charging customers for carry bags bearing their brand names, observing that such a practice effectively turns consumers into “moving advertisements” for the business.In a recent order, the commission directed Avenue Supermarts Ltd, which operates D-Mart stores, to pay Rs 10,000 to a consumer after dismissing the company’s appeal against an earlier compensation award.The dispute dates back to July 2019, when Sonal Vyas purchased goods worth around Rs 4,000 from a D-Mart outlet and was charged Rs 8 for a carry bag. She approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Gandhinagar, contending that under the Sale of Goods Act, a seller is required to deliver goods in a condition that allows customers to take them home and cannot compel them to purchase a carry bag separately. The district commission accepted her contention and, in 2020, awarded her Rs 6,000 as compensation.Challenging the order, the company argued that a carry bag is an independent product sold at a nominal price and is not an integral part of the goods purchased. It maintained that customers were informed about the charges through signboards and were encouraged to bring their own bags. The company also argued that the district commission had erred in relying on the Sale of Goods Act.After hearing both sides, the state commission noted that the carry bags prominently displayed D-Mart’s trade name, logo and brand identity. “By requiring customers to carry such bags in public places, the appellant derives a continuing commercial and promotional benefit. The customer effectively becomes a moving advertisement for the appellant’s business,” the commission observed.The panel further held that charging customers for an item that also serves as a marketing tool for the retailer was unfair. It added that consumers have a legitimate expectation that purchased goods will be handed over in a manner that enables them to carry them conveniently from the store.Rejecting the appeal, the commission said that while the amount involved may be small, the issue concerns a recurring practice affecting a large number of consumers. “Consumer rights cannot be measured merely by the monetary value involved in an individual transaction,” it observed.
