Lam Combined Project Report

Facts of the case
 Bata Limited is a Canadian owned multinational footwear and fashion accessory.The

company is organized in three business units:Bata,Bata industrials and AW lab
 The case took place at shop no.32,Sector 22-D,Chandigarh-160022
 The consumer involved in this case is S/o Shri Lalit Parshad Raturi,R/o H.NO. 1745-
A,Sector 23-B,Chandigarh and her husband Dinesh Parshad Rathuri
 The Complaint was filed by the Complainant Mr.Dinesh Prasad Raturi against Bata India
Limited in the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-I,U.T.Chandigarh
 The Complaint tells that on Buying shoes worth Rs 399 from Bata store he was billed an
additonal amount of Rs 3, for a carry bag,which complaint had no intention of
buying.The carry bag bore the name of the shop “BATA”with a tag line ‘Bata Surprisingly
Stylish’”Barcelona Milan Singapore New Delhi Rome”.
Legal issues involved in case

 Bata India Ltd. on its part argued that the credit card slip filed by the complainant with
the complaint revealed that the goods were purchased by one Ms. Poonam, however,
the complaint before the Forum was filed by one Mr. Dinesh Parshad Raturi
(complainant). So, there was no relation of consumer and service provider between the
opposite party and the complainant and the complainant had no right to file and pursue
the complaint before the Forum.
 The next argument raised by Bata India Ltd. was that the sale of paper carry bag is
optional purely at the discretion of the consumer and further there is no prohibition on
the opposite party to charge for the carry bag.
 Elaborating his argument to contradict the extracted observations made by Commission

in case of Trent Limited Vs. Sapna Vasudev (which was taken into reference in the case),
Counsel for Bata India Ltd. submitted that in case, the complainant was not willing to
buy the carry bag, he could bring his own carry bag.
 Bata India Ltd. Further argued on Rule 10 of The Plastic Waste (Management and
Handling) Rules, 2011 and Rule 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules,
2016, published vide notification dated 18.03.2016, issued by Ministry of Environments
and Forests is concerned, we would like to first extract the aforesaid Rule hereunder:
 Explicit pricing of carry bags. - No carry bag shall be made available free of cost by
retailers to consumers.
 The last argument raised by the Counsel for Bata India Ltd was that one should adopt
the practice of taking articles without bag out of the shop so that even paper bags can
be saved.
Analysis 1.
The First point of analysis is that the person who bought the item was different than the person
who filed the complaint. credit card slip filed by the respondent/complainant with the
complaint revealed that the goods were purchased by one Ms. Poonam, however, the
complaint before the Forum was filed by one Mr. Dinesh Parshad Raturi.
With this regard the Consumer Forum reffered to Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 with states the definition of consumer.
“As hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly
paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any
beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for
consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of
deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned
person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes”
Here it can be stated that respondent/complainant that Sh. Dinesh Parshad Raturi and Ms.
Poonam are husband and wife and being beneficiary, the complainant, namely Sh. Dinesh
Parshad Raturi filed the complaint.
Analysis 2.
The second point of analysis is the fact that the buying of bag was made optional and not
mandatory.
Here , the purchase of carry bags was made optional & voluntary and on the other hand, the
consumer/customer is not allowed to enter the shop with empty carry bag or carry bag
containing some goods purchased from other shop premises. By adopting above practice, the
Bata store (in this case) left the respondent/complainant with no other option with her but to
buy the carry bag alongwith the goods purchased, to carry such goods from the shop-premises.
By not allowing the customers to bring in the shop premises their own carry bags and thrusting
its own carry bags against consideration, the appellant/opposite party is deficient in providing
due service.
Analysis 3.
The 3rd point of analysis is the fact that the bag had a “bata” logo in it. The was interpreted as
the fact that the store not only charged for what would have been given for free but also
getting unintended promotion. So as per the court firstly charging for a paper bag and secondly,
putting its logo i.e. " Bata Surprisingly Stylish" on the same is a clear-cut unfair trade practice on
the part of the Bata store.
This was take from eairler judgement on M/s. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Pankaj
Chandgothia & Anr which has very similar background as the given case.
Conclusion
Dinesh Parshad Raturi contested that by charging him for the bag, Bata was also endorsing its
brand on the bag which was not justified and comes under the preview of Unfair Trade
Practices . Dinesh Parshad Raturi sought a refund of ₹3 and compensation for deficiency in
services.
The Chandigarh commission in its decision directed Bata India Ltd to refund the cost of the bag
( ₹3) and litigation charges, i.e. ₹1,000 along with ₹3,000 as compensation to the customer for
the mental agony caused by deficiency in services.
It can be concluded here that if baggage can be charged if the premise offer the customer the
facility to bring in three own baggage. this is a milestone judgement in favour of general
consumers. Shopkeepers are not allowed to charge extra from consumers, as they brand the
bag with their logo, so it becomes part of their advertising.
This consumer court's decision is legally valid across India. People can cite this order anywhere
in the country and have the bag charges waived. The order establishes that even if the bag is
environment-friendly, the retailer cannot charge an additional amount for the bag.

Lam Combined Project Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lam Combined Project Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lam Combined Project Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts of the case

 Bata Limited is a Canadian owned multinational footwear and fashion accessory.The

Legal issues involved in case

 Elaborating his argument to contradict the extracted observations made by Commission

You might also like