The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram, has directed a retailer to refund ₹30 charged for three carry bags and pay an additional ₹26,000 towards compensation and litigation expenses to a consumer.
The Commission held that charging a customer separately for carry bags, in circumstances where the bags are required to carry goods purchased from the store, can amount to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under consumer protection law.
The order was passed by a Bench comprising President Sanjeev Jindal and Members Jyoti Siwach and Khushwinder Kaur.
The decision highlights an increasingly important consumer issue: whether retailers can legitimately charge customers separately for bags used to carry their purchases.
Consumer Charged ₹30 for Three Carry Bags
According to the complaint, the consumer visited the retailer’s outlet in Gurugram on August 31, 2025, and purchased goods worth approximately ₹4,713.
At the time of billing, the retailer allegedly charged an additional ₹30 for three carry bags.
The consumer claimed that he requested the store to provide the bags without additional payment because he was unable to carry the purchased articles manually. However, the retailer allegedly declined his request and insisted on charging separately for the bags.
Considering the additional charge to be unjustified, the consumer approached the District Consumer Commission and alleged that the retailer had adopted an unfair trade practice and was responsible for deficiency in service.
Commission Examines Legality of Charging for Carry Bags
While deciding the complaint, the Gurugram Consumer Commission considered earlier consumer-law decisions concerning the practice of charging customers for carry bags.
The Commission referred to decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which had previously examined arguments advanced by large retailers that carry bags were supplied on a “no profit, no loss” basis or that customers were expected to bring their own bags.
The consumer fora have previously taken the view that such explanations cannot automatically justify charging separately for a bag when the customer is purchasing goods from the retailer.
The Commission also considered a decision of the Chandigarh State Consumer Commission, which had emphasised the responsibility of retailers to provide appropriate carry bags to consumers purchasing goods from their establishments.
Plastic Waste Rules Not a Defence
An important aspect of the ruling concerned the retailer’s possible reliance on the Plastic Waste Management Rules.
The Commission observed that retailers can no longer rely upon the earlier regulatory provisions relating to free distribution of plastic carry bags to justify imposing such charges on consumers, particularly after the relevant provision was omitted in 2018.
Thus, environmental regulations governing plastic usage cannot, by themselves, be treated as a blanket justification for imposing a separate charge on consumers for carrying their purchases.
Reference to Sale of Goods Act
The Commission also referred to Section 36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
The provision deals with the seller’s obligation concerning delivery of goods and, according to the Commission’s reasoning, expenses associated with putting goods into a deliverable condition are to be borne by the seller.
The Commission therefore considered the circumstances in which the carry bags were supplied and whether the additional amount collected from the consumer could be justified as a legitimate separate charge.
Retailer Directed to Pay ₹26,030
After considering the facts and applicable legal principles, the Gurugram District Consumer Commission found the retailer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The Commission directed the retailer to:
- Refund ₹30 collected for the three carry bags;
- Pay ₹15,000 as compensation for mental harassment and agony suffered by the consumer; and
- Pay ₹11,000 towards litigation expenses.
Therefore, apart from refunding the original ₹30, the retailer was directed to pay ₹26,000 by way of compensation and litigation costs, taking the total monetary liability to ₹26,030.
Why the Ruling Matters for Consumers
The decision assumes significance because a small charge imposed on an individual consumer can have a much larger impact when the same practice is followed across thousands of retail transactions.
The Commission cautioned that allowing retailers to routinely impose separate charges for carry bags could encourage a widespread practice whereby consumers are effectively compelled to pay additional amounts for carrying goods purchased from the same establishment.
The ruling therefore reinforces the broader objective of consumer protection legislation: preventing businesses from adopting practices that place consumers at an unfair disadvantage.
Key Takeaway
The Gurugram consumer ruling sends a strong message to retailers that charging separately for carry bags is not automatically permissible merely because the amount involved is small.
Where a carry bag is necessary for the consumer to take purchased goods from the store and the circumstances indicate that the consumer has no practical alternative, a separate charge may potentially invite scrutiny under consumer protection law.
Consumers who believe they have been subjected to an unfair retail practice can approach the appropriate consumer forum or seek assistance through the National Consumer Helpline.
Conclusion
The ₹30 carry-bag dispute demonstrates how consumer law can provide a remedy even where the financial amount involved in the original transaction is relatively insignificant. The Gurugram Commission’s award of ₹15,000 for mental harassment and ₹11,000 towards litigation expenses also illustrates that businesses may face substantially higher consequences when a disputed practice is found to constitute deficiency in service or an unfair trade practice.
For retailers, the decision serves as a reminder to review their billing and carry-bag policies carefully. For consumers, it reinforces the principle that seemingly minor additional charges can be challenged when they are imposed through practices that are legally unfair or unjustified.